Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Demagog]

Doesn't it also seem strange that all complex organisms have very similar organ systems? That's not entirely true I think, it's been awhile since I've taken biology, but for the most part the organ systems are the same. If evolution is based on random chance, it seems to make sense that you would have at least two or three mostly different organ systems. Since they are mostly the same, it almost seems like they were designed and the designer(s) got lazy :-p

Off the top of my head the only complex organism (I'm referring to organisms with organ systems) that has something drastically different is the cuttlefish. It's blood is green because it is chemically different (I don't remember how though). Although other cephalopods may have green blood as well... I can't recall.

Lastly, if you think of the extraordinarily complexity of your body - how billions of tiny cells come together to as a functioning, thinking, unit - it just seems impossible that it all started as a primordial soup. Neurons are the most amazing cells of all. Seemingly infinite storage capacity, long lifespan, the ability to think, AND they give consciousness. The last part alone is overawing and seems like too much for random events to produce. The brain even controls basically every body function. It's difficult to imagine that neurons could have developed without an oxygen supply system, or any other cell system. And outside of osmosis, I'm not aware of any oxygen uptaking system besides lungs and gills, which both require neurons to function efficiently (I think). Gills obviously came first though, so you can ignore lungs.

In what order would organ systems have to develop for the organisms developing them to survive and reproduce over millions/billions of years?

As a side note, if life exists on other planets, and the organ systems we possess are optimal, then the complex creatures there should have similar organ systems. That is, assuming their world is similar to ours. If things were drastically different but able to support life, they may be quite different.

[Chemist]

I have no problem with what you said here. Everything there is completely true. That is all micro evolution however, natural selection which is proven time and time again. The thing is, with that, they loose genetic information, they dont gain new genetic information which is what is necessary for evolution.

Right, I omitted many details because didn't want to write a wall of text nobody would read. To slightly expand #2: While children are genetic recombinations of their parents the recombination mechanism is imperfect. As a result some genes are copied slightly different than what they were like in the parent they're from. This is what we call a mutation and it is mutations that create new "genetic information"; by introducing new genes into the population.

Micro Evolution (also known as Natural Selection), is what you showed here.  Im talking about Macro-Evolution Im talkign about a Bacteria turning into a frog. A Tree, and a monkey being related through a common ancestor/

Macro evolution, then, is just micro evolution observed over a longer period of time. The environment keeps changing and the changes to the genetic makeup of a specific population keep accumulating. So after a lot of time has passed what you get can be very unlike what you started out with. And you've read my example of how one species can become two, right? Nobody has ever claimed that bacteria just change into frogs and trees (or they really don't understand evolution). Actually since we're talking different kingdoms here I'm not really sure frogs and trees *had* a common ancestor. But let's take for example the common ancestor of all animals: we presume there was a population of a single life form, long ago (paleontologists know the exact era), which was an ancestor to all the animals living today. That life form was probably in some ways similar to a bacterium (quite possibly evolved from them). It populated vast areas of the seas, and evolved differently in different areas due to different environmental pressures. It split into different species, which interacted with each other in ways (some started predating on others) which spurred further evolutionary pressure. The type of pressure for change on each species of the time determined how it would change, so different species changed differently in different places. That's how we got more and more species. Way over 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct today, but those which were successful always spread over a wide area and split again.

To summarize:

1. If a lifeform is succesful it spreads and populates ever larger areas.

2. In different areas it faces different environmental pressures causing it to evolve differently in each area (according to micro evolution from before)

3. In each area all the changes add up over time.

4. Fast forward a few million years and the life forms in each area can now be very different from each other as well as from their common ancestor millions of years ago.

Does this still make sense to you ? I can further clarify anything if you'd like.

[Demagog]

Chemist, I have a feeling he knows all that. I think what he is saying is similar to what I said regarding complexity. He's simply asking how is it possible that one cell could evolve into a mass of cells that work together in a symbiotic relationship.

Perhaps I'm forgetting something, but don't bacteria stop growing when they clump together too much? I don't really see how they could form a group of cells that could grow beyond a very small size.

[BluePriest]

Right, I omitted many details because didn't want to write a wall of text nobody would read. To slightly expand #2: While children are genetic recombinations of their parents the recombination mechanism is imperfect. As a result some genes are copied slightly different than what they were like in the parent they're from. This is what we call a mutation and it is mutations that create new "genetic information"; by introducing new genes into the population.

Do you know how mutations work? Mutations take already existing genetic information. They dont make new genetic information. For example, there have been test for mutating fruit flies. They have gotten an extra set of wings if Im remembering right. They used the genetic information already there and got a mutation from it. (btw, these flies didnt have nearly as good a survival rate as normal flies)

Mutations are mess ups. Something is copied an extra time. Sometimes it isnt copied enough. but it doesnt add any new genetic information.


btw, none of this is explaning irreducible complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum yet.

[Chemist]

Do you know how mutations work? Mutations take already existing genetic information. They dont make new genetic information. For example, there have been test for mutating fruit flies. They have gotten an extra set of wings if Im remembering right. They used the genetic information already there and got a mutation from it. (btw, these flies didnt have nearly as good a survival rate as normal flies)

Mutations are mess ups. Something is copied an extra time. Sometimes it isnt copied enough. but it doesnt add any new genetic information.

Or something is copied differently. -And that random change will often leave you with something that hasn't existed yet. What is a genetic code? It's essentially a bunch of ones and zeroes in the form of a double helix. Different sections of it pertaining to different functions have been named "genes". If you change the code (or it changes by itself) - that changes what the gene does. A single mutation is a very small change to the code: it is not enough to change a wing into a new kind of limb (that would involve (correctly) rewriting much more than a what single mutation changes), whereas it doesn't take that much of a change to make the life form wingless (simply "delete" the wing gene or change the right "variables" so the wing won't be built). Read on, though...

Drastic mutations like the no wings one may mean the specimen that got it wouldn't live to spread the genes and it would leave the gene pool immediately (though in a different environment that exact mutation can actually become very useful). Other mutations, however, may have a very small effect on how an organism functions. If they're benign, then they make no difference. But while the vast majority of mutations are harmful to the organism, some of them are actually beneficial (I vaguely recall reading of a 1:10000 ratio once... just note that even harmful mutations are rare enough that they get filtered out of the gene pool faster than new ones emerge). And harmful mutations do leave the gene pool with time: even though each individual mutation has little impact those who accumulate a lot of them are at bigger disadvantage - which means specific negative mutations are slowly being filtered out of the gene pool as opposed to the beneficial ones which slowly spread across it. Which is why looking over a longer time period it looks as if though all changes are beneficial (because they're the only ones that are kept in the pool). In our deer example a new type of mutation which causes the ears to be slightly longer would be deemed beneficial- as opposed to any mutations which change the ear in most other possible ways.

Over time small beneficial changes combine into noticeable ones - especially when several small changes (each beneficial by itself) turn out to have a good synergy (the result is more than the sum of the parts).

btw, none of this is explaning irreducible complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum yet.

BTW I don't really *need* to explain all that stuff. As long as you agree with everything I've said then you essentially agree with the core concept of evolution. Do you agree with everything I've said so far ? I can always clarify any misconception.

[BluePriest]

Do you know how mutations work? Mutations take already existing genetic information. They dont make new genetic information. For example, there have been test for mutating fruit flies. They have gotten an extra set of wings if Im remembering right. They used the genetic information already there and got a mutation from it. (btw, these flies didnt have nearly as good a survival rate as normal flies)

Mutations are mess ups. Something is copied an extra time. Sometimes it isnt copied enough. but it doesnt add any new genetic information.

Or something is copied differently. -And that random change will often leave you with something that hasn't existed yet. What is a genetic code? It's essentially a bunch of ones and zeroes in the form of a double helix. Different sections of it pertaining to different functions have been named "genes". If you change the code (or it changes by itself) - that changes what the gene does. A single mutation is a very small change to the code: it is not enough to change a wing into a new kind of limb (that would involve (correctly) rewriting much more than a what single mutation changes), whereas it doesn't take that much of a change to make the life form wingless (simply "delete" the wing gene or change the right "variables" so the wing won't be built). Read on, though...

Drastic mutations like the no wings one may mean the specimen that got it wouldn't live to spread the genes and it would leave the gene pool immediately (though in a different environment that exact mutation can actually become very useful). Other mutations, however, may have a very small effect on how an organism functions. If they're benign, then they make no difference. But while the vast majority of mutations are harmful to the organism, some of them are actually beneficial (I vaguely recall reading of a 1:10000 ratio once... just note that even harmful mutations are rare enough that they get filtered out of the gene pool faster than new ones emerge). And harmful mutations do leave the gene pool with time: even though each individual mutation has little impact those who accumulate a lot of them are at bigger disadvantage - which means specific negative mutations are slowly being filtered out of the gene pool as opposed to the beneficial ones which slowly spread across it. Which is why looking over a longer time period it looks as if though all changes are beneficial (because they're the only ones that are kept in the pool). In our deer example a new type of mutation which causes the ears to be slightly longer would be deemed beneficial- as opposed to any mutations which change the ear in most other possible ways.

Over time small beneficial changes combine into noticeable ones - especially when several small changes (each beneficial by itself) turn out to have a good synergy (the result is more than the sum of the parts).

btw, none of this is explaning irreducible complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum yet.

BTW I don't really *need* to explain all that stuff. As long as you agree with everything I've said then you essentially agree with the core concept of evolution. Do you agree with everything I've said so far ? I can always clarify any misconception.

You really dont know much about mutations do you, or perhaps the modern theory of evolution? and, you really do NEED to explain all that stuff, because that is the whole FOUNDATION of evolution. If you cant explain something like that, then you cant explain how it could exist through evolution. Mutations are the source of evolution. Neo-Darwinism, which is the accepted form of evolution, is not based off of random mutations. If it was the base of it, then it would be sponatious generation, but on a smaller scale. Can you give me any examples of a mutation that added genetic material that wasnt already there? One that humans have seen in thier lets just say about 4000 life span? I have done a good amount of research (however, you may have done more) and have not found a single beneficial mutation mentioned. Even in textbooks, they dont mention beneficial ones (most of the time), they just mention harmful ones. And dont even bothering to mention the sickle cell mutation often found in africa just because it helps against malaria. Thats like saying that being born without an arm stopped me from getting it cut off and is more of a joke than anything to me. All "helpful" mutations Ive seen are situations like that. They have one mutation, but because of luck, they didnt get killed by something else. That isnt your body adapting. That is your body lucking out.

It remind me of reading an asprin bottle. Itll stop your pain, but it may cause death. Same concept. This disease is deadly, but if you have X wrong with you, then its actually beneficial! Amazing!

Youre not going to get away with just sorta explaining something away here. You have to give actual evidence. All youve basically told me is that mutations happen. If you go to the wikipedia article on neo-Darwinism, the word mutation isnt even mentioned unless you go to the page about evolutionary sythesis from there. That is an old theory for how evolution happened, and even most scientists disregard it as the guiding light for it.  Even if it did have some small thing to do with it, Natural selection is considered to be the main force behind it.

[Kurohami]

Well, no matter what other people say, I believe that evolution do contribute to how the organisms now days are shaped. Evolution is supported by many evidences, how some species change to adapt to the environment. To explain how evolution occurred I can not, for I don't have a PhD or any through research on this matter, but it does happen. That is why we are now no longer covered with furs, because it's unnecessary, and it will only take up nutrients to grow the furs. I am also inclined to believe that there is a higher being that made everything in the universe the way they are, at least partially. I think life is programed by a higher intelligence, but it's so well programmed that it could change and adapt and interact with the environment on their own, this changing and adapting process is evolution. To some extend, I believe that science is merely the study of the rules that higher intelligence have set. I don't believe in religions though, their god is way to personified to be anywhere close to what the higher being is truly like.

[Chemist]

If you cant explain something like that, then you cant explain how it could exist through evolution.

For starters I'm going to focus on making it clear that evolution is happening *now*. You can still believe it began with creation if you want. Back to the flagellum: figuring out *exactly* (it's not like they don't have a clue) how every single limb, organ and organelle in the history of evolution has come into existence is not a prerequisite for evolution to be true. Figuring these things out is like solving puzzles anyway. An eye is very complex, yet the way it evolved is remarkably simple. A few other puzzles are tougher nuts to crack (this is the only one I've heard of, actually), but if a puzzle is difficult that doesn't mean it can't be solved (unless one can prove the opposite (-hey, they do that in maths )). The scientists just need to break their heads over this one some more and failing that computers may be strong enough to solve it for them in a few decades.

Mutations are the source of evolution. Neo-Darwinism, which is the accepted form of evolution, is not based off of random mutations. If it was the base of it, then it would be sponatious generation, but on a smaller scale.

I beg your pardon?

Can you give me any examples of a mutation that added genetic material that wasnt already there? One that humans have seen in thier lets just say about 4000 life span? I have done a good amount of research (however, you may have done more) and have not found a single beneficial mutation mentioned. Even in textbooks, they dont mention beneficial ones (most of the time), they just mention harmful ones. And dont even bothering to mention the sickle cell mutation often found in africa just because it helps against malaria.

Note again that changing the old *is* producing new - think of it as changing a value on an Elements card: you get a different (new) card.

And a beneficial mutation?
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Youre not going to get away with just sorta explaining something away here. You have to give actual evidence. All youve basically told me is that mutations happen.

So is your problem that you don't believe me that mutations happen?

That is an old theory for how evolution happened, and even most scientists disregard it as the guiding light for it.  Even if it did have some small thing to do with it, Natural selection is considered to be the main force behind it.

Natural selection *is* its main driving force but mutations, as you've noticed, are *required* to introduce "new genetic material".

[BluePriest]

I see what the difference we are having is. Mutations and things changing are not the same. You dont seem to realize the difference between the 2. Mutations are something random, not being based on environment. Natural Selection is based on environment. Micro Evolution is happening now. Speciation is happening now. Macro Evolution, no one has seen. Micro Evolution can go back to how it was by a change in the environment (usually, not always). Speciation makes a loss of genetic information, doesnt gain anything, and organisms will eventually get less and less complex, and have less and less information to pull data from.

Mutations are the source of evolution. Neo-Darwinism, which is the accepted form of evolution, is not based off of random mutations. If it was the base of it, then it would be sponatious generation, but on a smaller scale.

Oops, what it is suppose to say is that the way you are talking about it is spontaneous generation on a smaller scale.

The peppered moth article  that you pointed me to, I had actually read before. As the article itself admits, it is micro-evolution. The article then explains it away saying that there is no real difference between micro and macro evolution in the long run. It is very misleading there, as when it talks about macro, it is still saying that the moths will be moths, just different kinds, and even in thousands of years, they will still be moths. That is the problem. It is still the same type of animal, even though it may not be sexually compatible anymore with the previous ones.

As you have showed me natural selection, there is still no beneficial mutation shown.

No, my problem isnt that I believe mutations dont happen, apparently the real problem rests in you not knowing the difference between natural selection and a mutation.

And to the final thing you mentioned, so are you saying black people are mutants? or perhaps the white people are? Just because their skin is a different color? no, their body adapted. It didnt mutate. Theres a difference, no matter the color.

Now, the burden of truth for my comment of irreducible complexity, still stands. If you are believing through faith that it is possible, then you are no less religious than a muslim believing something through faith.

[Chemist]

Mutations and things changing are not the same. You dont seem to realize the difference between the 2. Mutations are something random, not being based on environment. Natural Selection is based on environment.

Mutations are random changes in the genetic code (in genes). Natural selection doesn't change existing genes but changes the prevalence of specific genes and their combinations in a population. Both are happening.

Speaking of clearing up miscomprehensions, you may want to look up the meaning of "mutant" since it may not mean what you think it does.

Carrying on:

Speciation makes a loss of genetic information, doesnt gain anything, and organisms will eventually get less and less complex, and have less and less information to pull data from.

That's wrong in several ways . I'm fairly sure by now that this "loss of information" is a standard creationist argument of sorts as well as that you're misusing it. Let's begin by showing what's wrong with your version. DNA stores information in the form of base pairs (C,G,A,T; 2 bits of information per base pair). We can easily convert this code into ones and zeroes as used to store information in computers. The DNA of a human, for instance, is storing about 3/4 GB of information. So how exactly is any of this information "lost" when one species splits into two? You get two different versions of the code, yes, but both species still have DNA of about the same length (meaning that each is storing the same amount of information). Unless the DNA gets shorter with each species split (which it doesn't) you're wrong here.

What the argument was supposed to be:

Let's return to our deer population and say that point M1 in the genetic code of deer is the part which determines fur color. 01001011 means brown,  01001010 means beige, 0100001 means white and 01101011 means blue (obviously this isn't quite how fur color is encoded, but this is for illustration). The first three "genes" existed in the original deer population whereas the fourth one didn't. The argument would then go that the desert environment could "create" beige deers because the gene was already there, whereas blue deer couldn't evolve under any circumstances (since a gene for that doesn't exist). Further, if the beige desert deer would have evolved into a separate species, it would have "lost" the brown gene as it would no longer be present in the population. Where the argument is wrong is in not considering mutations. If a mutation occurred on the M1 of a deer then the code could change to mean "blue" or any other numeric value possible. This would introduce a new gene into the population, and if beneficial it would then spread through natural selection - just like in the case of the peppered moth.

[...]Macro Evolution, no one has seen.[...] [...] The article then explains it away saying that there is no real difference between micro and macro evolution in the long run. It is very misleading there, as when it talks about macro, it is still saying that the moths will be moths, just different kinds, and even in thousands of years, they will still be moths. That is the problem. It is still the same type of animal, even though it may not be sexually compatible anymore with the previous ones.[...]

Well there *is* no difference between the mechanics of micro and macro evolution (those are creationist terms, by the way). Nobody has seen species undergo huge changes ("seen macro evolution") because ten thousand years is a very short time span for evolution.

Moths would still be called moths because after ten thousand years they would still be similar enough. They would, however, belong to a new species. Different coloration, difference in size and antennae, what more do you want? That's about as much difference as there is between a lion and a tiger and you aren't calling them a single species. They belong to the same genus, though, just like those moths would.

I suppose you'd like to see moths turn into something completely different? Well they could if you waited a bit longer. Let's say humans go extinct due to some virus and animals are left to thrive. For a species of moth which prays on smaller insects size becomes beneficial. So some time later the moths are the size of pigeons. At that size they also start praying on various birds and bats. Its proboscis, while remaining retractable, develops blade-like qualities which allow it to impale its pray mid-flight. But a species of birds adapts to hunting these moths, blade or not. The moths, by that time, already spend a considerable amount of the day hiding in underground tunnels dug by various rodents and will sometimes even kill and eat rodents they surprise in their homes. The species splits with some moths still flying around and others losing their wings and spending most of their time in tunnels. The later species goes on to develop an ability to dig as well as venom in their extensible blade. They become widespread and split into several species again. There you have it. I'm not clairvoyant to be able to predict the path evolution would actually take, but this here amount of evolutionary change is far from unreasonable for 3-5 million years of evolution, especially considering that insects reproduce fast. So in just 3 million years we could go to having a new genus of moths (blade moths), as well as a whole new family of subterranean insects which would be deserving of a new name. To bad humans wouldn't be around to name them.

In summary:
Evolution works like described in my first post. Natural selection is vital for it to function, because it essentially sets the course for evolution. It determines which genes become widespread and which genes fall out of the gene pool. The significance of mutations then is in that the potential for change in a species is not limited by what genes exist in its gene pool as new genes are slowly being added to it.

I hope you understand this now. It's really not that hard.

[BluePriest]

I wish someone else would psot as well, not because im not enjoying my conversation with you, but because its getting sorta monotanous talking about the same thing over and over. I like variety. Anyways, first thing,



 man, you cant take a joke can you? Ill be sure to always put /joke next to anything I can.

From BluePriest (aka me)
And to the final thing you mentioned, so are you saying black people are mutants? or perhaps the white people are? Just because their skin is a different color? no, their body adapted. It didnt mutate. Theres a difference, no matter the color.

/joke
That better? If thats what you were talking abot, if not, then the jokes on me
Before I get into anything els,e Im going to go to a few random things in our post.

Quote from: BluePriest on Today at 02:21:46 AM
[...]Macro Evolution, no one has seen.[...] [...] The article then explains it away saying that there is no real difference between micro and macro evolution in the long run. It is very misleading there, as when it talks about macro, it is still saying that the moths will be moths, just different kinds, and even in thousands of years, they will still be moths. That is the problem. It is still the same type of animal, even though it may not be sexually compatible anymore with the previous ones.[...]
_________________________________________________

Well there *is* no difference between the mechanics of micro and macro evolution (those are creationist terms, by the way). Nobody has seen species undergo huge changes ("seen macro evolution") because ten thousand years is a very short time span for evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Not a creationist term, its actually a scientific term.

In summary:
Evolution works like described in my first post. Natural selection is vital for it to function, because it essentially sets the course for evolution. It determines which genes become widespread and which genes fall out of the gene pool. The significance of mutations then is in that the potential for change in a species is not limited by what genes exist in its gene pool as new genes are slowly being added to it.

Hypothetical speaking is not beneficial to this discussion at all as I could talk hypothetically about a supreme being creating all of us. Thats the thing with science, things often end up different in practice than what is predicted in theory.

Now, Ive got a question, Is there a difference between a rabbit getting gradually bigger over the years, vs a rabbit growing wings over the year?
What about fur color changing over the years vs growing wings over the years?
My nephew could tell me that the wings is far different than fur color changing and getting bigger. Hes 5 by the way. /joke

Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a difference between change within a species, and change through species. And there is definitely a change between change crossing the species boundary only, and change crossing the family boundary so that it is no longer considered to be part of that animal family.

I have a ton of different arguments im waiting on, Ill doing my best to explain the things you are saying, however, when speaking hypothetically all the time, it i very hard to disprove, because it is your hypothetical situation, so anything could happen in it, and it is impossible to disprove one.

That is why I am asking for scientific facts on how a bacterial flagellum was created. How something was created randomly in nature, when scientists, an intelligent being, have yet to be able to do such a thing.

Im not even talking about some type of god here. I could explain my beliefs in a very scientific way, however, the thing is, they are all just hypothesis as well, and you wouldnt be able to disprove them because of that. So theres no point in me brining it up. The whole point of this topic wasnt to prove intelligent design, its to critically think about evolution, and yet, all youve done is give me fairy tales on how something COULD have happend, or how it COULD happen, and then misrepresent facts, and try to discredit me.

Wont touch on the loss of genetic information thing, natural selection chooses pre-existing data, and you do loose information through it, you do gain genetic information through mutations sometimes (researched it further and I was wrong, so sue me).

Now, once again, id like information on the bacterial flagellum please. If you are tired of hearing about it, then just say you cant explain it, and ill go to my next point. Thats simple enough. Theres tons of different things I have to mention, Im learning, however, I still am far from believing that evolution should be taught as anything more than a widely accepted hypothesis (I used the right word this time, yay!)

[Demagog]

I said some stuff but was ignored... guess no one had any answers since I basically only asked questions.

To restate the thesis: I agree with evolutionary theory; however, I "disagree" (don't believe is more accurate) with the idea that the beginning of life and everything since has all been random chance. It's just too improbable for atoms to come together to make extremely complex structures which make more extremely complex structures which make more extremely complex structures (and the chain continues) and the end result is everything alive today. There are too many things that had to have happened in exactly the right way and time for life to have come this far based on random chance.

If we apply Ockham's razor, it makes more sense that it wasn't random chance. What else it could be is up to debate.