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

[felix]

Mutations are changes in genetic information that causes differences from each generations. Most mutations are neutral and are observable from generation to the next. Such as height, body proportion, hair color, eye color, facial features, muscle density, etc. basicly all a mutation is, is slightly changing the build or function of an organisms. For Instance we can look at breeds of dogs. We see various aspects of mutations because dogs have multiple fur patterns, colors, eye colors, body types, muscle density, endurance, health problems, jaw strength, etc. do to the specific needs of each breed, the mutations become specific to that breed.

You missed one important point ... mutations are random. While natural selection is non-random, it still depends on random mutations.

Another thing you missed: Evolution is based on a "mistake" that occurs from a "sophisticated design" of DNA replication process which has error correction and proof reading.

 

[Classik]

Welcome back, Felix. We missed u

 

[Barbarian]

You missed one important point ... mutations are random. While natural selection is non-random, it still depends on random mutations.

A non-random process plus a random process, is a non-random process. Would you like to see how?

Another thing you missed: Evolution is based on a "mistake" that occurs from a "sophisticated design" of DNA replication process which has error correction and proof reading.

Not surprisingly, the "error rate" in DNA is pretty close to the optimum for evolution; not so much as to damage the population, but enough to keep adding variation that is essential to population survival.

Optimization of DNA polymerase mutation rates during bacterial evolution
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824296/

 

[felix]

You missed one important point ... mutations are random. While natural selection is non-random, it still depends on random mutations.

A non-random process plus a random process, is a non-random process. Would you like to see how?

Yes Please.

 

[Barbarian]

Do the simulation I showed in the 1000$ evolution challenge thread.

 

[felix]

Do the simulation I showed in the 1000$ evolution challenge thread.

No, your understanding of evolution is wrong.

 

[Barbarian]

No, your understanding of evolution is wrong.

Sorry, that's observably the way it works. Darwin's four points still apply.

1. More organisms are born than can live.
2. Every organism varies somewhat from it's parents.
3. Some of these variations make it more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
4. Those with such variations tend to leave more offspring, changing the gene frequencies in the next generation, and this accumulates over time, leading to changes in the population.
   

Observably true. But try the simulation. You'll see that it works just that way.

 

[felix]

No, your understanding of evolution is wrong.

Sorry, that's observably the way it works. Darwin's four points still apply.

1. More organisms are born than can live.
2. Every organism varies somewhat from it's parents.
3. Some of these variations make it more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
4. Those with such variations tend to leave more offspring, changing the gene frequencies in the next generation, and this accumulates over time, leading to changes in the population.
   

Observably true. But try the simulation. You'll see that it works just that way.

Except darwin doesn't know genetics and mutations are random.

~ Felix

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin didn't have a clue about genetics. He, like almost all scientists of his time, thought that inheritance was like mixing paint. Mendel's discovery, had he learned about it, would have cleared up a major problem for his theory. The modern theory incorporates Darwin's points and genetics.

Scientists have verified that mutation plus natural selection accounts for evolution and common descent.

 

[felix]

Darwin didn't have a clue about genetics. He, like almost all scientists of his time, thought that inheritance was like mixing paint. Mendel's discovery, had he learned about it, would have cleared up a major problem for his theory. The modern theory incorporates Darwin's points and genetics.

Scientists have verified that mutation plus natural selection accounts for evolution and common descent.

So, where is the verification?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Darwin didn't have a clue about genetics. He, like almost all scientists of his time, thought that inheritance was like mixing paint. Mendel's discovery, had he learned about it, would have cleared up a major problem for his theory. The modern theory incorporates Darwin's points and genetics.

Scientists have verified that mutation plus natural selection accounts for evolution and common descent.

So, where is the verification?

The verification?

One solid verification is that the greatest minds in the world accept the Theory of Evolution. You are obviously happy to be typing on a computer. The reason that you have a computer is because of the exchanging of ideas between the greatest minds available. It isn't like one aspect of science(like computation) is filled with sound minds that are advancing in their knowledge, and then you have an aspect of science(biology) that has been taken over by crackpots. There are capable scientists that crowd every interest of science.

You just can't accept the fact that you are an ape, even though your entire muscular-skeletal system reeks of ape. You are a mammal-- just like a whale is. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is the truth.

Me saying "It is the truth" doesn't make it The Truth. You have to use your brain to process all of the information and come to the most reasonable conclusion.

 

[felix]

Darwin didn't have a clue about genetics. He, like almost all scientists of his time, thought that inheritance was like mixing paint. Mendel's discovery, had he learned about it, would have cleared up a major problem for his theory. The modern theory incorporates Darwin's points and genetics.

Scientists have verified that mutation plus natural selection accounts for evolution and common descent.

So, where is the verification?

The verification?

One solid verification is that the greatest minds in the world accept the Theory of Evolution. You are obviously happy to be typing on a computer. The reason that you have a computer is because of the exchanging of ideas between the greatest minds available. It isn't like one aspect of science(like computation) is filled with sound minds that are advancing in their knowledge, and then you have an aspect of science(biology) that has been taken over by crackpots. There are capable scientists that crowd every interest of science.

You just can't accept the fact that you are an ape, even though your entire muscular-skeletal system reeks of ape. You are a mammal-- just like a whale is. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is the truth.

Me saying "It is the truth" doesn't make it The Truth. You have to use your brain to process all of the information and come to the most reasonable conclusion.

So, who are these greatest minds and what have they discovered or invented?

 

[Milk-Drops]

The major point that keeps circleing around here is that the theory of evolution works, it verifiable and very useful for Biology. Felix your contention is that mutations in themselves are random. Well that isn't a problem because random doesn't mean bad. Especially considering that rules that determine whether a mutation stays within a gene pool isn't random.

Its similar to how one's day is going to be. The outcome of your day when you wake up in the morning is technically random. Will good day, Bad, sad, uneventful, etc day? The result is based on many factors. Does that make it bad? No. Its life. Unexpected things happen.

I'm really just wondering what you really want to accomplish by saying that a mutation is random or an error is DNA sequencing. Errors are not necessarily bad. Ask someone who's day didn't go as plan or a vacation didn't go as planned and it still ended up to be awesome or better anyways.

 

[felix]

I'm really just wondering what you really want to accomplish by saying that a mutation is random or an error is DNA sequencing. Errors are not necessarily bad. Ask someone who's day didn't go as plan or a vacation didn't go as planned and it still ended up to be awesome or better anyways.

Every year 125 million people are born. Today, there are more people on planet earth currently living than all the people (AMH) ever lived from 100000 years (according to evolutionists) to 5000 BC. Today, people live in harsh climates, drought, hunger, exposed to chemicals, radio activity etc and I should be expecting a new species any time soon - but lo.. only cancer, decease, suffering and of course X-Men movies.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Every year 125 million people are born.

Based on what statistics?

Today, there are more people on planet earth currently living than all the people (AMH) ever lived from 100000 years (according to evolutionists) to 5000 BC.

Who are these evolutionists?

Today, people live in harsh climates, drought, hunger, exposed to chemicals, radio activity etc and I should be expecting a new species any time soon - but lo.. only cancer, decease, suffering and of course X-Men movies.

What leads you to believe that there should be a new species? What biological observations are you using to base this assertion?

 

[felix]

Every year 125 million people are born.

Based on what statistics?

Today, there are more people on planet earth currently living than all the people (AMH) ever lived from 100000 years (according to evolutionists) to 5000 BC.

Who are these evolutionists?

Today, people live in harsh climates, drought, hunger, exposed to chemicals, radio activity etc and I should be expecting a new species any time soon - but lo.. only cancer, decease, suffering and of course X-Men movies.

The statistics is based on the population growth rate of a planet called earth which currently has 7 billion population. Not sure if you are keeping up with the general knowledge stuff.

What leads you to believe that there should be a new species? What biological observations are you using to base this assertion?

Mutations.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The statistics is based on the population growth rate of a planet called earth which currently has 7 billion population. Not sure if you are keeping up with the general knowledge stuff.

That is not what I asked. I asked you for the source of the statistics and who is making the claims you are presenting. Is there a problem with providing sources?

Mutations.

As I asked, what observations leads you to believe there should be a new species? Provide examples please.

 

[Barbarian]

It is highly unlikely that humans will form a new species by allopatric speciation (splitting off to form two species). Sympatric speciation (a population evolving to the point that it would no longer be reproductively effective with earlier members of that population) is proceeding. We have many alelles in the human population to day that did not exist in our Cro-magnon ancestors (who are anatomically identical to us, if a bit larger than the average human today).

The reason for this is simple; humans now travel worldwide, and distant populations are constantly sharing genes. This makes it unlikely that an isolated population would be isolated long enough for speciation to occur.

So long as there's gene flow, speciation is very unlikely.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Scientists have verified that mutation plus natural selection accounts for evolution and common descent.

So, where is the verification?

Directly observed speciation by mutation. Predicted evolution by natural selection has been directly observed. Predictions about the way a population will change in a specific environment have been confirmed. Genetic evidence from closely-related organisms.

Evolutionary Development is a science that studies the way homobox genes work and change in evolution. The same genes that affect the development of a preying mantis (for example) are at work (in a modified forrm) in humans.

Differences in highly conserved molecules like cytochrome C, are the result of mutations that sort out according to evolutionary relationships determined by other data.

Things like that.

 

[felix]

Directly observed speciation by mutation.

Name that new species which was observed to be evolved through speciation.