[_ Old Earth _] Theory of Evolution crash course/Q&A

[Barbarian]

How does a process like blood clotting comeforth?

Without it an organism would bleed to death from theslightest cut.

In fact, mice without some of the components can survive cuts without bleeding to death:
F. Doolittle, "The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation: A Case of Yin and Yang," Thrombosis Haemostasis 70 (1993): 24-28.




Without every component it won't function, it's anall or nothing system. How does a cell sensitive to light comeforth? Another system that the parts on their own are useless buttogether they make a light sensitive cell. These traits are written in the DNAfully formed, which seems contrary to evolution.
From my point of view the only “newtraits” that come forth are ones we don't want like heart disease,cancer, diabetes, auto-immune diseases. Which makes me believe weare devolving. Since DNA is a copy of a copy, of a copy, overgenerations and only deteriorates over time, it seems to bear thatout.

 

[Vaccine]

How does a process like blood clotting comeforth?

Without it an organism would bleed to death from theslightest cut.

In fact, mice without some of the components can survive cuts without bleeding to death:
F. Doolittle, "The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation: A Case of Yin and Yang," Thrombosis Haemostasis 70 (1993): 24-28.

I don't see how that is evidence for evolution.

It's just as possible mice had every component for blood clotting at one time and lost some of those components through a known process like degeneration.
We know DNA loses information regularly from 1. water damage, 2. Radiation damage, 3. Chemical damage.
Are there any known processes ADDING information?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Can you provide an example of an improvement showing up both over several generations and over one generation?

The catagory of Candids spread off from being large slow moving predators, to a varied group that became bears, racoons, wolves, foxes, and dogs.

That sword cuts both ways, evolution has no explanation either.

Have you looked? You seem to not understand one thing. theory of evolution is a field of study. The theory itself doesn't explain how blood work. The theory just explains how traits pass from generation to generation.

Your OP says “What makes the theory so useful and revolutionary is not that it states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt.”
How does a single cell adapt light sensitivity?

Bring me an example please. There is more than one light sensitive cell. You haven't even answered my question where I asked you to both identify one and name the parts. The theory is not an all or nothing thing.

Again, your OP says “What makes the theory so useful and revolutionary is not that it states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt.” How does an organism adapt blood clotting?

So far, the theory isn't refuted because like the theory says, blood clotting is a useful trait, so the multiple selection pressures don't select against it. Your question is an origin question, not an evolution question.

Good point, I will rephrase the question, can evolution explain how functional blood clotting or vision arose?

No, because the theory of evoltuion is not the theory of Genetics nor phylogeny. Genetics explains where traits come from. Phylogeny explains the origins of traits in a lineage, Evolution explains why the traits remain.

This is my post from another thread that never got answered. These are the four major proteins, I left out the rest since they are useful in other functions in the cell.

1. 
   
   • 
     
     11-cis-retinal
     ​
   • 
     
     rhodophsin
     ​
   • 
     
     transducin
     ​
   • 
     
     phosphodiesterase
     ​

1. • I didn't ask you for the protein sequence, I asked you to name the parts of a light sensitive cell. The proteins tell the cell what to do, but are not the cell itself.
     
     

     Linked together in a cell with pumps, resynthesizers, and other cell proteins they interact to produce vision. This is oversimplified but, 11-cis-retinal is linked with rhodophsin, only 11-cis-retinal reacts to light but since they are linked they both change shape and rhodophsin triggers transducin to bind to Phoshodiesterase and cuts the molecule GMP. When enough GMP is cut it causes an imbalance of charge which is something the nervous system recognizes. And all this has to be reset back to its original state for the next cycle. On its own 11-ris-retinal can't trigger transducin or cut GMP, rhodophsin doesn't react to light or have the ability to cut GMP, Transducin and phosphodiesterase don't react to light and simply serve to cut GMP. On their own these proteins can not produce vision. Only when they all exist together do they make a light sensitive cell. This system is irreducibly complex and can not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

     Did you ever take into consideration that its possible that sight wasn't the process of the cell originally, but became a by product, and eventually the by product became useful enough to give enough of a survival benefit?
     
     The reason I'm asking you this is because I set this thread up to give a high school level introduction to the theory of evolution. It seems you are not really asking about the thoery, but trying to throw in disertation level arguments that you should be submitting to (if they are yours and not just copy pasted from a website) to professors or authorities in the field you are specifically asking about. I'm not a college professor/ scientists. I trained in secondary education to teach people introductory level biology.
     
     

     Your OP says: The theory of evolutionis the observation that organism adapt andchange to their surroundings through selectionpressures from one generation to the next.

     Which has nothing to do with Diabetes or Heart disease which are usually caused by dietary life styles.
     
     

     Let me make sure I am getting this right. You're telling me we don't adapt or change to our “living or eating habits” from one generation to the next?

     You seem to be jumbling things together. As an individual person we are equiped with an immune system and genetic dispositions. An individual doesn't evolve, our immune system and epi genetics show the limits that an individual can adapt. If the individual can survive long enough to have children, who also survive. Then the immune system and genetics will be passed on. If the person can't survive to have children, or the children don't survive due to immune system deficiencies or epi genetics then the adaptations weren't fit for the environment. Does this make sense.
     
     

     I am aware of what mitosis and fertilization are, I said “over generations”, I was pointing out degeneration.
     
     

     Since DNA is a copy of a copy,of a copy, over generations and only deteriorates over time, it seems to bear that out.

     You didn't show any degeneration though. You pointed out problems, but nothing detrimental.
     
     
     
     

     First, what “new species” are you referring to. Second, let's go through the lineage of starfish.

     No, because this is not a thread about phylogeny. Its about the theory of evolution.
     
     

     The reason I can't seem to find material on this separate “evolutionary variation” is because it doesn't exist. That article is from the Tokyo Institute of Technology and they don't have the same commitment to evolution as western science does. They might give evolution a nod, but then proceed to actual science and explain reproduction in starfish. They don't provide any evolutionary explanation because they don't see any.

     No, I think its because you seem to not understand that difference between Evolution, phylogeny, and genetics.
     
     
     
     

     I've given several examples of how evolution isn't useful for explaining things in biology.

     No, you asked questions that fit better in differnt fields of study.

     Degeneration of DNA explains things better than evolution.

     No, because you didn't provide a degeneration. There has never been a degeneration because you can't go backwards.
     
     

     Your OP you said: “natural selection” is “there to weed out mutations that cause noticeable hindrance to an organism”
     
     I explained Cancer would be a “noticeable hindrances”, but that mutation is not being “weededout”. Cancer, heart disease, and auto-immune diseases are in fact being passed on with an alarming increase. Natural selection is demonstrably false.

     No, because you don't understand what noticeable is to natural selection. Something noticeable would be something that prevented an organism from having offspring. If someone developed one of those diseases after they have children, then its not going to get selected against because the traits have already been passed to the next generation.
     
     

     You provide another argument against evolution when you said our digestive system didn't evolve and can't adapt to our own eating and living habits.
     
     And another with this statement:
     
     Your physical adaptations isn't what gets passed on, but the ability for your body to adapt is passed on.

     No, this demonstrates you don't understand what natural selection is. Its becoming clear you've never taken a college level biology course.
     
     

     Adaptations do not get passed on. I agree, adaptations are not written to DNA. DNA already comes with the information that allows an organism to adapt. If the information isn't there the organism can't adapt, it either dies or moves to an environment it can adapt to.

     You forgot to mention that when organisms have offspring, there are mutations in the gamete that if positive or neutral to the offspring will be passed on to the next generation. If they are negative and prevent the organism from being able to have off spring, then natural selection selects against it.
     
     I would recommend picking up a text book on the theory of evolution or taking a class on it. That way, you would better understand what the theory is, and what it isn't.

 

[Vaccine]

The theory just explains how traits pass from generation to generation.

I don't think it does a “good” job at explaining how traits are passed. A poor immune system passes from generation to generation, just the same as a good immune system does.

You didn't show any degeneration though. You pointed out problems, but nothing detrimental.

Mutation and fragmentation are known causes of degeneration. I think degeneration of DNA explains changes in a species better than the theory of evolution.

Which has nothing to do with Diabetes or Heart disease which are usually causedby dietary life styles.

They are not usually caused by lifestyles, it's just one possible cause. Diabetes is a genetic disorder. So are many forms of Cancer. They are traits that get passed from generation to generation, which is why I was asking about them here.

The reason I can't seem to find material on this separate “evolutionary variation” is because it doesn't exist. That article is from the Tokyo Institute of Technology and they don't have the same commitment to evolution as western science does. They might give evolution a nod, but then proceed to actual science and explain reproduction in starfish. They don't provide any evolutionary explanation because they don't see any.

No, I think its because you seem to not understand that difference between Evolution, phylogeny, and genetics.

A simple “I don't know” will do, no need to get nasty. I will ask someone else about the additional “evolutionary variation” on starfish reproduction.

The reason I'm asking you this is because I set this thread up to give a high school level introduction to the theory of evolution. It seems you are not really asking about the thoery, but trying to throw in disertation level arguments that you should be submitting to (if they are yours and not just copy pasted from a website) to professors or authorities in the field you are specifically asking about. I'm not acollege professor/ scientists. I trained in secondary education to teach people introductory level biology.

I saw Q & A, but see what you actually meant with this thread. I will start my own thread.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I don't think it does a “good” job at explaining how traits are passed. A poor immune system passes from generation to generation, just the same as a good immune system does.

The decider is that if an organism's traits, in this case immune system, is poor and causes the organisms to die before it can produce offspring, then natural selection has in fact occurred. Natural selection isn't perfect at picking out problems, it is just how nature works as it has been observed.

Mutation and fragmentation are known causes of degeneration.

Do you have an up to date study or article to back this up?

I think degeneration of DNA explains changes in a species better than the theory of evolution.

Then I would recomend that if you think this is the case, that you submit your findings to peer review in the scientific community. That way it can be tested, and if its true accepted. Until then, its just an assertion.

They are not usually caused by lifestyles, it's just one possible cause. Diabetes is a genetic disorder.

Type 1 diabetes is genetic, type 2 is caused by lifestyle or pancreas failure. You also have to consider, that if a person is properly treated, they can have diabetes and still have children. This means that it can be passed on to generations.

So are many forms of Cancer. They are traits that get passed from generation to generation, which is why I was asking about them here.

What I'm trying to explain is that if a person who has these genetic disorders still survives long enough to have children, then natural selection can't select against traits if it remains in the gene pool. Modern medicine makes it harder for natural selection to effect first world people with access to it. In nature a person with type one diabetes or various cancers wouldn't survive long without treatment. In modern society, treatment is available.

A simple “I don't know” will do, no need to get nasty. I will ask someone else about the additional “evolutionary variation” on starfish reproduction.

I'm sorry if I came off as nasty. Silly Internets and its lack of us being face to face and all that. My comments were more out of concern that the thread was getting derailed from its original purpose.

I saw Q & A, but see what you actually meant with this thread. I will start my own thread.

That might be best. I'll chime in if I have anything to add.

 

[Vaccine]

Natural selection isn't perfect at picking out problems,

Thats what I wanted to know. I'm learning not everything is 100%.

Do you have an up to date study or article to back this up?

http://www.biolreprod.org/content/78/4/761.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028209039661?np=y

Silly Internets and its lack of us being face to face and all that. My comments were more out of concern that the thread was getting derailed from its original purpose.

Well my college days were over 20 years ago, so I'll focus on the OP. I haven't read it yet, but "In what Darwin got wrong" they seemed to have the opinion natural selection alone can't account for the diversity of life, that genes play an important role. What do you think?

 

[jasoncran]

Natural selection isn't perfect at picking out problems,

Thats what I wanted to know. I'm learning not everything is 100%.

Do you have an up to date study or article to back this up?

http://www.biolreprod.org/content/78/4/761.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028209039661?np=y

Silly Internets and its lack of us being face to face and all that. My comments were more out of concern that the thread was getting derailed from its original purpose.

Well my college days were over 20 years ago, so I'll focus on the OP. I haven't read it yet, but "In what Darwin got wrong" they seemed to have the opinion natural selection alone can't account for the diversity of life, that genes play an important role. What do you think?

they also believed that skinners laws of learning cant be supported by natural selection.

 

[Milk-Drops]

http://www.biolreprod.org/content/78/4/761.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028209039661?np=y

These studies focus on degneration of sperm during the storage and tranfer when doing artificial insemination. These studies show that we still have a ways to go to fully understand the proper way to store sperm cells.

Well my college days were over 20 years ago, so I'll focus on the OP. I haven't read it yet, but "In what Darwin got wrong" they seemed to have the opinion natural selection alone can't account for the diversity of life, that genes play an important role. What do you think?

That is actually true. Natural selection is actually just one of many differnt types of selection. Darwin's main importance to the theory was that he was the first to pen it. Many of his ideas are actually old hat and tossed. many within his lifetime due to Mendel's reaserach. Off the top of my head I can think of artifical selection, sexual selection, location, punctuation equilibrium, founder effects, bottle neck effects, inbreeding, etc.

A lot of study has happened in the 250+ years since Origins was published.

 

[Milk-Drops]

they also believed that skinners laws of learning cant be supported by natural selection.

I'm not sure who "they" are, but what I think you are getting at is that aspect of psychology aren't necessarily set in genetics, so its both a genetic and environmental affair.

 

[jasoncran]

uhm they that wrote that book, one of them has a phd in behavior psychology.

 

[Milk-Drops]

uhm they that wrote that book, one of them has a phd in behavior psychology.

I was wondering if you had the name of the author.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see how that is evidence for evolution.

It demonstrates that the clotting system can kinda work, even if not fully evolved. The earliest version, in chordates, only involves a low-pressure system, in which proteins just tangle up at the damage, and trap blood cells to make a clot.

That still works kinda, but more evolved chordates have much more sophisticated systems.

It's just as possible mice had every component for blood clotting at one time and lost some of those components through a known process like degeneration.

They were knock-out mice; the genes were removed intentionally, to see what would happen. The mice survived.

We know DNA loses information regularly from 1. water damage, 2. Radiation damage, 3. Chemical damage.
Are there any known processes ADDING information?

Mutation and gene duplication.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think it does a “good†job at explaining how traits are passed. A poor immune system passes from generation to generation, just the same as a good immune system does.

Nope. Those with poor immune systems are much more likely to die before reproducing.

 

[Vaccine]

These studies focus on degneration of sperm during the storage and tranfer when doing artificial insemination. These studies show that we still havea ways to go to fully understand the proper way to store sperm cells.

If that is what you took away from those links I probably didn't do a good job explaining myself. And storage is only a small part of the issue. Fragmentation occurs naturally and gets worse as men age. I was pointing out a cause and effect.
Here is the info from those links:
“Genetic and environmental factors produce different levels of DNA damage..†Fresh or frozen, fragmented DNA is the problem and the effects are the same.
“The purpose of the present study was to investigate the long-term consequences on development and behaviorof miceâ€

http://www.biolreprod.org/content/78/4/761.short

This This one had nothing to do with storage. Just a cause and effect:
“These results show for the first time that prenatal human influenza viral infection on day 9 of pregnancy leads to alterations in a subset of genes in brains of exposed offspring, potentially leading to permanent changes in brain structure and function.â€
“Schizophrenia and autism are neurodevelopmental disorders with genetic and environmental etiologies.â€
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

"To review the mechanisms responsible for DNA fragmentation in human sperm, including those occurring during spermatogenesis and transport through the reproductive tract.†It included the all natural too, even if the study included ways IVF screens for DFS since they want to minimize issues.
“Finally, we also scrutinize how the presence in the embryonic genome of DNA strand breaks or modifications of DNA nucleotides inherited from the paternal genome could impact the embryo and offspring.â€
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028209039661?np=y

The reason I brought this up is I think genetics and degeneration of DNA is better at explaining things than evolution. Explaining damage to DNA is very useful and actually helps science.

In your OP you said “What makes thetheory so useful and revolutionary is not that is states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adaptâ€

Can you give an example of a species adapting and changing?
And how is explaining how they adapt revolutionary or useful?

And here's a link to the book “WhatDarwin Got Wrongâ€, where apparently they critique naturalselection.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/B00AK2OUFE

 

[Vaccine]

It demonstrates that the clotting system can kinda work, even if not fully evolved. The earliest version, in chordates, only involves a low-pressure system, in which proteins just tangle up at the damage, and trap blood cells to make a clot.

That still sounds pretty sophisticated to me.

Mutation and gene duplication.

I still think mutations are a stretch since most only change existing base pairs.
I have to admit gene duplication is truly adding base pairs. I think ferns have tons of duplicate genes with little mutation since the error protection in DNA is so efficient though. Which seems to me duplication of genes (information) isn't quite "new" information. I still think information is being lost in most species faster than it is being added.

 

[Pizzaguy]

So the variance of intelligence within the human race is small compared to the difference between us and chimps.

I have never seen a half-man-half-chimp creature...

I work for one.

 

[jasoncran]

lol.

 

[Milk-Drops]

If that is what you took away from those links I probably didn't do a good job explaining myself. And storage is only a small part of the issue. Fragmentation occurs naturally and gets worse as men age. I was pointing out a cause and effect.

The problem is that you are making hasty generalizations based on these studies. These studies don't refute evolution, but just state that DNA can be damaged. DNA being damaged through storage and aging isn't a problem for the theory of evolution.

“These results show for the first time that prenatal human influenza viral infection on day 9 of pregnancy leads to alterations in a subset of genes in brains of exposed offspring, potentially leading to permanent changes in brain structure and function.”
“Schizophrenia and autism are neurodevelopmental disorders with genetic and environmental etiologies.”

This doesn't effect the theory of evolution. Its just something that is common sense in medicine. If a disease effects the mother during pregnancy, the baby is at risk for damage.

The reason I brought this up is I think genetics and degeneration of DNA is better at explaining things than evolution. Explaining damage to DNA is very useful and actually helps science.

The main problem here is the same when you where bringing up phylogeny and genetic questions earlier. You are linking correlation together where there is none. None of what you posted refutes evolution or natural selection. In order to completely take down the theory of evolution, you pretty much have to disprove most of phylogeny, genetics, taxonomy, and over 500 years of observed research.

I “What makes thetheory so useful and revolutionary is not that is states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt”

It gave us the mechanic of natural selection. That was extremely revolutionary to biology in the 19th century and it helped to united the fields of taxonomy, genetics, and eccology.

Can you give an example of a species adapting and changing?

I already tried twice, and you ignored it both times, leaving it out of both responses. I'll do it one more time, but if you ignore it again and don't address it, I'll report you for trolling.

By studying Canines, biologists have discovered that bears, wolves, and dogs are all part of the carnivore lineage. Bears developed bigger bodies, wolves and foxes adjusted to differnt hunting habits, and dogs were genetically bread by humans from wolves.

And how is explaining how they adapt revolutionary or useful?

Ecology, Medicine, and genetics all make sense and biologists can make accurage predictions based on what we know about the theory of evolution.

Vaccines are perfected with the knowledge of evolution, understanding human ancestry makes sense with the theory of evotuion, understanding evolution helps scientists breed animals and also helps with genetic modification.

And here's a link to the book “WhatDarwin Got Wrong”, where apparently they critique naturalselection.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/B00AK2OUFE

Finnaly, I can get an author. I did a google search and read a bunch of reviews on the book. Turns out this book isn't denying evolution but is reinforcing biologists have know for over a few decades. Natural selection isn't the only selection pressure. I knew that, and I already mentioned several other selection pressures.

The book retreads information you would learn in an undergrad evolutionary biology class.

 

[Vaccine]

In order to completely take down thetheory of evolution, you pretty much have to disprove most ofphylogeny, genetics, taxonomy, and over 500 years of observedresearch.

: WOW, I think you totally misunderstand me. I am simply asking a fewquestions. And making the observation, I don't think it can explainthings as well as you think it can.

 

[Milk-Drops]

: WOW, I think you totally misunderstand me. I am simply asking a fewquestions. And making the observation, I don't think it can explainthings as well as you think it can.

The thing is your questions keep circling around the idea that fragmentation and degeneration explain things better than evolution. The problem I'm having is I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I've answered several quetsions, just for you to repeatedly ask the same questions several times again.

So I ask this question, and if you expect for me to continue on with this conversation, you should answer it. What are you trying to understand or get out of this thread? What is the goal? Are you trying to understand natural selection and Evolution? Or are you looking to stump me and/ or disprove Evolution?