Jaranath

As discussed in the Atheist thread, linked here:

ATHEIST

I'm starting another thread to hopefully provide for discussion of evolution without derailing the atheism thread. It's virtually impossible to discuss one without at least touching on the other, but I hope this will help keep both threads rather focused. Also, since I'm the one who tended to discuss it at the greatest length and was about to again, I figured I'd better follow my own guidelines.

So, here's my post continued from before:

Ouch. There are some major errors here. Now, please note that I'm glad you accept evolution and I agree with many of your positions...I'm simply making necessary corrections and observations.

So: First, you're correct on the fact/theory duality of evolution. The consensus of the biological community is effectively universal that the evidence for the occurrence of evolution is so massive and complete as to be as close to law as is possible with any scientific theory--it is arguably better supported than any other theory, thus the label of "fact." The "theory" portion comes in the general scientific use of the term, as an overarching framework of ideas that best describes known evidence. It also encompasses and has room for many other sub-theories and peripheral theories.

Second, you're somewhat correct about the existence of macro/microevolution, but there is debate about how concrete the distinction is. They are not completely separate, that much is certain--macroevolution is essentially the product of massive amounts of microevolution. The debate is over which mechanisms operate within which, and to what degree. Some of these mechanisms include processes that are not simply "minute genetic mutations which occur over time," and indeed, evolution would exist (in a radically different and stunted form) without mutation...it is natural selection that's key to evolution.

Third, you're got some things seriously mixed up about micro and macro. Both are quite well "proven," understanding that philosophically, the word "proven" is useless. The evidence for both is beyond excellent.

Microevolution is not about the timeline of life. It is about small-scale changes--mutations on the individual and population level, the dynamics of genes on the population level, natural selection on those small scales. Macroevolution is about the cumulative effects of microevolution on the grander scale, such as speciation events and larger. Microevolution is easily observable in real-time laboratory experiments and field observations, what is typically described as direct evidence. Macroevolution is more typically the domain of the fossil record, genetic studies and developmental studies (especially in the hot new field of evo-devo,) because at that scale the time required to witness it is usually beyond human lifespans. That evidence is generally described as indirect evidence.

That latter distinction--indirect evidence for macroevolution--tends to be the a major sticking point for many creationists, who think direct evidence is preferrable to indirect (it is) and can't be compelling in science. Indeed it can be definitive, and is for macroevolution and other aspects of scientific theory. This is generally the reason creationists often concede the occurrence of microevolution, but challenge the existence of macroevolution.

I recognize there are many who'll disagree with my statements above...which (again) is why I thought it past time to start this thread.

[edit]

Reprinted from below:

Also...something I wanted to point out earlier. A discussion like this one, properly done, can take a lot of time and research, so I'd advise patience in waiting for responses. It also can cause burn-out or threaten to command more time than one wants to provide, so I'd also advise being kind about someone wanting to quit rather than pouncing on them for leaving. I point these out because they might easily apply to me here, and so I'd like that courtesy and will certainly extend it to others myself.

ballplaya4237

After a little research, you're absolutly correct. Great explanation.

----

I need somone to say somthing I can actually debate, it's rare I agree exactly with someone.

----

I saw your post about information and I figured it was only fair to post where I have been getting teh majority of my information from.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

foolio_67

After alot of researching about evolution to figure out if its in fact correct, I came across the final bits of information to complete my decision on this website.

Anybody in the process of attempting to figure out whether we evolved or not should take some time and look into this site. It has alot of good information that helped me make my decision, hopefully yours as well.

Here it is: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

dpetro64

Jaranath

Indeed, a phenomenal resource, especially for a volunteer effort. Of course, even they can't keep up with the cutting edge of the science on every single topic.

I would also recommend, in general, a good biology education with an emphasis on evolutionary biology and related disciplines (hehe), and a reading list...that I'm not sure where I put now. Hm. However, it includes Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is, Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Futuyma's textbook, Evolution (yeah, a textbook), Darwin's Origin, excerpts from the Dover trial transcripts, especially Ken Miller's and Michael Behe's testimony (I have some good excerpts from Miller here somewhere...) and and probably Ken Miller's other work such as Finding Darwin's God, though I disagree with Miller on many of the religious aspects of the book, of course.

Also...something I wanted to point out earlier. A discussion like this one, properly done, can take a lot of time and research, so I'd advise patience in waiting for responses. It also can cause burn-out or threaten to command more time than one wants to provide, so I'd also advise being kind about someone wanting to quit rather than pouncing on them for leaving. I point these out because they might easily apply to me here, and so I'd like that courtesy and will certainly extend it to others myself.

Jaranath

Would you like to present some specific items or evidence from the source you found especially compelling?

foolio_67

It's an entire book and I haven't read it for over a year so that would be difficult. I would have to read it over again just to find some big points. You seem intelligent from your previous posts in other topics such as the Athiest one. This lead me to believe that you have quite an interest in this topic, and I was in the exact same boat as you are(if my assumptions are correct). You will probably enjoy reading it and want to keep reading more.

I suggest either looking at the FAQ section or just starting from the first chapter.

Jaranath

That's cool...I wasn't demanding specifics by any means, and I understand now that you're making a general recommendation.

I appreciate the recommendation and will indeed probably read it cover-to-cover...probably years from now, given my bookshelf and reading plans... Please don't take that to mean that I'm not familiar with much of what's inside, and indeed I've looked at it in the past as well as discussions of its content. Walt Brown is a YEC with some unusual ideas.

Jrfish007

From my understanding, which I haven't read as much as most here, but steps 2 and 3 in this picture are where the idea of evolution of man falls apart because we don't have evidence of these parts right? So we go from monkey to upright, which is to much to call a "micro evolution" I'm not sure if I'm using that term correctly though. What I mean is that it's to big of a step to be considered a minute change, it's a much more aggresive change.

I remember reading a small article about this, I forgot where/who wrote it, but he believed that humans where indeed evoleved from monkeys, but humans took a huge step forward (which they proved sometime a huge step in evolution does occur). In the case of humans, he believed it was spured by radioactive materials that cause DNA mutations. Not sure if this was the case, but it seemed plausable. But I'm not an expert on this subject.

Jaranath

Correct, such changes would not be an example of microevolution. But human origins, specifically since our branching from our common ancestor, is quite well fleshed-out these days. I'd have to dig a bit to see where the biggest gaps are...you might be right, they may be nearer our common ancestor with apes (note: apes, and specifically chimpanzees, not monkeys, which are technically a different group much more removed from us!) I think there was some recent work that suggested we might have found a fossil startlingly close to our common ancestor with apes, but I'd have to dig at that one, too.

For obvious reasons, that particular image is not representative of the currently agreed human lineage...

Janizary

Do these threads (politics, religion, evolution/creation, little silver fish on the back of peoples cars...etc.) ever serve any purpose in actually changing someone's opinion on the topic?

They are like a particularly virulent disease that eventually infects every forum, sweeping the plague of discord and inflated egos with them. Not that I don't love discord, mind you

__________________

• DX/LX/EX Gas Mileage Thread
• Civic Si Gas Mileage Thread
• Civic Hybrid Gas Mileage Thread

foolio_67

Six people in total of all the forums. This number found on www.straight-up-mo-f*ckin-factZ.org

Jaranath

Yes, they do, in rare instances. Beyond that, they allow for better mutual understanding (if they don't turn nasty) and exchange of information and ideas. In general, I'd rather speak with creationists than not speak with them. In can be educational, and can help to correct misconceptions held by either side.

And understand this tradition goes through bars and pubs across the centuries. The main difference here is that we can't buy each other beers.

Janizary

Lol. Thanks, that was refreshing.

__________________

• DX/LX/EX Gas Mileage Thread
• Civic Si Gas Mileage Thread
• Civic Hybrid Gas Mileage Thread

aki

First off, let us square away the definition of Microevolution and Macroevolution from the Evolutionist's perspective, and then what Creationists believe with regards to evolution.

Macroevolution is as Jaranath described, genetic changes that entail speciation and anything above in taxonomic organization. This is a problematic definition, because declaring a new species is rather arbitrary. Scientists have "proven" macroevolution exists because they found a bacteria that used to eat one thing, but were bred to eat something else.

But consider the definition for microevolution which says it is "minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time."

Ask yourself: what dictates whether bacteria eating something different is a "minor change" or a major change at the level of species and higher taxa? Scientists decide it's not minor, but completely fail to account for what's happening at the genetic level. Do they know exactly *why* the habits can change? No.

Microevolution for the most part doesn't conflict with Creationism so I'll skip over that one.

Creationism and Macroevolution
Now the creationist's definition of macroevolution is in short "changes that require new, unique genetic information to be added"--and reject that this occurs. The major flaw in the theory of macroevolution (which contrary to Jaranath's view, is not fact) is that it ultimately claims over time for genetic information to become increasingly complex. That in a span 1.5 billion years, organisms have become increasingly complex, from single-celled prokaryotes, to **** sapiens that exist today. Now in the real world, the opposite is observable: genetic information is reduced over time, as natural selection causes the deletion of genes ill-suited for survival.

For example, take a look at bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Nature's way of adjusting and macroevolutionizing, right? No--antiobiotic-resistant bacteria are resistant because a key receptor that would normally react to antibiotics is removed. This change is actually worse for the bacteria's overall survivability, as in a non-antibiotic environment it quickly gets overtaken by bacteria that's not resistant. But the non-resistant strains quickly get killed in hospitals, hence the resistant ones stay alive in those environments.

Same goes with speciation through genetic drift, as so famously noted by Darwin with the finches on the Galapagos islands. What science classes typically fail to mention is that the finches switch between the thick beaks and thin, depending on the survivability of the seasons. Finches do not show macroevolution at all, because the beaks are simply the expression of the dominant genotype.

To delve into more scientific-speak, speciation can occur through the isolation of specific genotypes, which then manifest specific phenotypes. Going back to Mendelian genetics, take the example of wrinkled and non-wrinkled peas. Wrinkled peas are a recessive trait, meaning it won't show up in the plant if there's any non-wrinkled genes in the DNA. So when you see wrinkled peas in a specific area, it's not because genetic information increased in complexity, but because certain genes got knocked out due to natural selection.

In nature, we observe natural selection. Natural selection by its very... well, nature, knocks out genes. So how then could people think genetic complexity increases over time rather than decreases? How can a fish/amphibian sprout lungs, if in its transitionary state it's neither optimal for survival in both aquatic and terran environments? Macroevolution is contrary to natural selection, which I emphasize again, is observable.

The creationist believes that genetic information detiorates over time instead of improves. This is backed in the mass exinction as seen in fossil records (dinosaurs, mammoths), as well as in recent history (Dodos, passenger pigeons). It's important to note that creationists believe that less species existed in the beginning, contrary to strawmen thrown up by Evolutionists. As speciation occured through genetic drift, catastrophic environmental changes, it diversified the types of animals and plants we see today.

I spat out so much information there dunno where I should keep going. :) So I'll leave it at that for now.

Civic4u

Maybe that why I'm so hairy all around, glad my girlfriend love it

aki

I don't expect anybody's opinion to be changed. As a matter of fact, I think I'd be a little disappointed if somebody's view was changed to Creationism because of my posts My rationale in making these posts is to arouse interest in issues people have typically thrown off as stuff already been proven--and for people to make their own assessments rather than believing one-sided accounts.

Jaranath

This will be long, and complicated. Sorry for that. Some people will already know many basic scientific concepts I discuss...sorry, I have to try to be accessible for the full audience. I'm also quoting unconventionally since I'm doing such an excessive amount of fisking.

Macroevolution is as Jaranath described, genetic changes that entail speciation and anything above in taxonomic organization. This is a problematic definition, because declaring a new species is rather arbitrary.
Arbitrary within certain limits, perhaps. Not meaningless, and quite important to many mechanisms of evolution, because under the modern Biological Species Concept the key point is reproductive isolation from other populations (and not necessarily inability to produce fertile offspring). And of course there are exceptions, what do you expect from life? What is the reproductive isolation of an asexual rotifer? What is the isolation of an asexual bacterium that can exchange genetic material with others?

Scientists have "proven" macroevolution exists because they found a bacteria that used to eat one thing, but were bred to eat something else.
Is this the extent of your knowledge of the evidence for macroevolution? Do I also sense here a disregard for indirect evidence?

Ask yourself: what dictates whether bacteria eating something different is a "minor change" or a major change at the level of species and higher taxa?
I'm not sure I see the relevance of this. You're discussing quibbles over how to draw the line between microevolution and macroevolution, a line that biologists agree is meaningless at the most fundamental levels anyway.

Scientists decide it's not minor, but completely fail to account for what's happening at the genetic level. Do they know exactly *why* the habits can change? No.
Yes.

Now the creationist's definition of macroevolution is in short "changes that require new, unique genetic information to be added"--and reject that this occurs.
How many scientific organizations and societies accept this definition? Why is that?

The major flaw in the theory of macroevolution (which contrary to Jaranath's view, is not fact) is that it ultimately claims over time for genetic information to become increasingly complex.
No, it does not. Complexity may be a trend in evolution because life by necessity started extremely simply, and thus complexity was a massively unexplored niche. But evolution requires and otherwise shows no inherent trend toward or away from complexity, nor any other inherent trend.

That in a span 1.5 billion years...
3.5 billion.

Now in the real world, the opposite is observable: genetic information is reduced over time, as natural selection causes the deletion of genes ill-suited for survival.
Indeed, it often is. See above. It is also often increased.

No--antiobiotic-resistant bacteria are resistant because a key receptor that would normally react to antibiotics is removed.
Considering this statement as a generalization, it is absolutely false. It also carries internal problems. Antibiotic resistance is conveyed by many mechanisms, one of which can be changing a binding site that the antibiotic normally binds to, yes. This is the mechanism of streptomycin resistance.
Streptomycin binds to the bacterial cell's ribosome at a location that typically binds tRNAs, molecules critical to protein synthesis. In doing so, it messes up the synthesis process. Because the bacterium is now unable to synthesize proteins properly, it eventually dies.

Resistance to streptomycin is conveyed by a single amino acid mutation at a specific location on the binding site of the ribosome...specifically, lysine, which mutates to asparagine or threonine. Streptomycin is no longer able to bind there. But here, we now face an internal problem with asserting that such a mutation is a “loss of information.” Although indeed, in some cases a deletion mutation (simply removing the amino acid or a group of AAs outright) may occur, others may also. In this case it's a substitution mutation in the genetic code for that specific lysine. A common creationist claim is that mutations which add or do not subtract such as addition mutations, frameshifts, duplications, and substitutions, are also decreases in “information” because by their definition of “information,” the mutation's product must have some sort of meaning or purpose. The vast majority of mutations in biology are neutral—neither helpful nor harmful—and this contributes to some of the more advanced mechanisms of evolution which I'll probably talk about later. But in this case, the benefit is instant. Not only that, this mutation makes the ribosome's activity more accurate; it now binds to its intended targets much more often, making several times fewer mistakes in protein synthesis.

As I said, other mechanisms are also known. The antibiotic could be prevented from entering a bacterial cell by decreasing the membrane's permeability to the antibiotic molecules. The cell could actively “pump” the antibiotic across the membrane from the inside to the outside. The cell could lose its dependence upon the antibiotic's target molecule—for instance, if the antibiotic attacks a component of a metabolic pathway, the cell could switch to another pathway or rework the pathway to not need that component. The cell could actively attack and destroy or inactivate the antibiotic molecule. This last mechanism is the mechanism of penicillin resistance via the activity of beta-lactamase. Beta-lactamase is an enzyme produced by penicillin-resistant bacteria that binds to and alters the penicillin molecule, rendering it harmless. This is a very common and fairly old resistance, so we developed ways to counter it a long time ago, most commonly by the use of an inhibitor molecule such as clavulanic acid that permanently binds to the beta-lactamase molecule, rendering it inert. Bacteria now, naturally, have begun evolving resistances to these inhibitors—they are altering the structure of their beta-lactamases so that they do not bind to clavulanic acid and similar inhibitors very well, but still bind to penicillin. We even know what binding sites this resistance operates at, and can predict what mutations we will probably see.

This change is actually worse for the bacteria's overall survivability, as in a non-antibiotic environment it quickly gets overtaken by bacteria that's not resistant. But the non-resistant strains quickly get killed in hospitals, hence the resistant ones stay alive in those environments.
Generally, this is true. However, the bacterium doesn't know that. If this is the environment it finds itself in, and for the foreseeable future it is (when will humans ever stop using antibiotics?), then this is a beneficial adaptation, and the distinction is effectively meaningless. “Beneficial” and “harmful” are extremely context-dependent. What helps in one place very frequently hurts in another, and may hurt somewhat even in the best environment, making much of evolution a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, many if not most antibiotic resistances carry some cost in that they tend to require the synthesis of an extra molecule or more of a molecule (extra metabolic load), or involve a quick jury-rig of an existing system which is likely to decrease its effectiveness in the short term. To cite a human example, we pay an enormous price for our upright stance in chronic back problems, the result of asking a spine designed for horizontal movement and weight support to sit upright all day. But from an evolutionary perspective, one would expect that over time these costs would be lessened as the bacterial molecules or systems are tweaked and refined, and indeed we see that happening. This is the concept of the evolutionary arms race: Bullets kill cops and soldiers, so we develop body armor. Guns become higher-powered and armor-piercing ammunition becomes more available, so we develop improved armor. The improved armor is heavy and cumbersome, so we develop lighter armor and innovative designs.

Same goes with speciation through genetic drift, as so famously noted by Darwin with the finches on the Galapagos islands. What science classes typically fail to mention is that the finches switch between the thick beaks and thin, depending on the survivability of the seasons. Finches do not show macroevolution at all, because the beaks are simply the expression of the dominant genotype.
Darwin's finches were never intended to show macroevolution in progress, merely that it had occurred, with some good elaboration on how (an original colonizing finch species with subpopulations on various islands with different environments resulting in differential natural selection). They're still an excellent example of that, and they still represent separate species despite occasional, rare interbreeding which one would expect from such close species. As you correctly observed, the species barrier can be fuzzy, especially on such small scales.

The original macroevolution of Darwin's finches and the microevolution actively observed by researchers on the islands is not solely genetic drift, and I'm confused as to how exactly you're applying drift in this case. Darwin didn't even know about drift at the time of his work and publication; his contributions to evolution were natural selection and common descent, which he applied admirably to his Galapagos observations. The variations observed by the team of researchers I suspect you're referring to are good examples of natural selection and microevolution in action, directing beak size in the birds. In a historical context, this shows some of the mechanisms that led to the speciation of the finches on the islands.

Your argument sounds similar to Wells', which are discussed here.

So when you see wrinkled peas in a specific area, it's not because genetic information increased in complexity, but because certain genes got knocked out due to natural selection.

In nature, we observe natural selection. Natural selection by its very... well, nature, knocks out genes.
This is generally accurate, but still misleading. Natural selection is not about the elimination of genes, but the favoring of some genes over others. Unfavored genes can persist and even become fixed in a population depending upon the circumstances.

But more importantly, your example ignores the obvious question: Where did the alleles that selection is acting upon come from? Again, I recognize that you seem to be quite an adherent of creationist information theory, and thus hold that new information, represented as new alleles and variations and biological systems and adaptations cannot occur via the main mechanisms of evolution (mutation, drift, selection.) This is extremely false. I suspect this is something we might want to focus our discussion on, as it is clearly an critical point of disagreement and a common theme running through your and my comments. And as it is, when covering so many claims and comments, the exchange becomes rather wordy (this has to be my longest post here yet). Given that, I'll make only some limited comments on it for now, as fuel for further discussion.

First, any beneficial or neutral mutation itself is novelty and new information—it generally does not happen to the exclusion of other alleles. It increases the variation within the population, and very often lengthens the code. Second, I've already discussed the potential for mutations to directly provide new functions or adaptations and how “benefit” is heavily context-dependent. These things do not always arise from “degradations” of DNA, and I find some creationist definitions of what constitutes a degradation highly dubious. We have evidence of all of these processes occurring and leading to new “information” and frequently altogether new proteins. Third, the creationist perspective is woefully exclusive and/or ignorant of gradualism, the accumulation of genetic material, and the modification and “commandeering” of existing systems. For example, DNA is quite capable of stockpiling neutral mutations, both expressed and unexpressed, until a new selective force or mutation puts them into effect. A gene can be easily duplicated by mutation and gradually modified over time before abruptly being expressed, or always in expression but nonessential due to its duplicate status. There are a host of ways these mechanisms can and do occur, and they're fairly important to Gould and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium.

This is lifted directly from TO here, because it goes directly to a critical point I think most creationists consistently fail to understand:
“According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).”
Creationism, especially ID, tends to look at information (by any definition) and complex systems in biology and ask how a random process could generate these. One key misunderstanding here is that evolution as we know it on Earth is not a random process, because natural selection is not random. It is the environment imprinting itself upon the organism.

In many ways, I see creationist information theory as a reincarnation of the Second Law argument.

How can a fish/amphibian sprout lungs, if in its transitionary state it's neither optimal for survival in both aquatic and terran environments?
Ask these guys. But ask soon; we're wiping them out. Again, see my above comments about gradualism, accumulation and co-option. These are the mechanisms by which we propose evolution of such systems, and we have evidence for them.

The creationist believes that genetic information detiorates over time instead of improves. This is backed in the mass exinction as seen in fossil records (dinosaurs, mammoths), as well as in recent history (Dodos, passenger pigeons).
I don't follow. We have knowledge of the causes of many extinction events, especially modern ones. How are extinction events caused by the deterioration of genetic information?

It's important to note that creationists believe that less species existed in the beginning, contrary to strawmen thrown up by Evolutionists.
Some do, but others don't. But certainly I agree that even most leading YECs tend to use a vague concept of “kinds” that provides wiggle room.

As speciation occured through genetic drift, catastrophic environmental changes, it diversified the types of animals and plants we see today.
Without a clear definition of “kinds” it's impossible to get evolutionary biologists' opinions on this. Assuming a YEC framework, I suspect it would require a definition almost indistinguishable from “species.”

My eyes are crossing and this took my entire evening. Congratulations to whatever masochists actually completed reading this. I definitely think we'll have to work on breaking the discussion into niblets, saving many topics for later. I probably should have done that here. I'm forgetting at least one important thing I had left to say, and we haven't even touched on standards of evidence, but I just can't think...(thud).

Corpsman