Shane said:



True but misleading. Natural selection does not introduce new genetic material. It selects from among existing genetic material that which is best adapted to the environment. But natural selection is not the whole picture with evolution, and it was never advanced as the explanation for new genetic information. New genetic information is introduced by mutations.

See, this is *exactly* the kind of dishonest argument on the part of anti-evolutionists that discredits their case. It is misleading, either through ignorance (the most charitable explanation) or intentionally.

Not quite that misleading. They also address mutation. However mutation results in the loss of genetic material, not that addition of it. This is claimed over and over again by creationists and the intelligent design community. I have seen it brought up in debates between creationists and naturalists (aka evolutionists) and have never seen one example of where mutations have been observed adding genetic material. If such examples exist, I don't know why naturalists don't do a better job of citing them.

This is what I understand. I am not a scientist so this might be crude.

New genetic material can be created by crossover and mutation. Crossover is the result of genetic material from two parents being combined in their offspring. For example, mom has straight black hair and dad has curly blond hair in a primitive world where no gene for curly black hair exists. Their offspring ends up with curly black hair. Through a series of mutations and generations the curly black hair could become feathers, then feathers becomes wings, etc. However in this example there really is no new genetic material. There is only beneficial mutations from differing genetic material being passed on to offspring.

Now if we say that a string of proteins were somehow created by chance and somehow this string of proteins formed a cell and became life, how would that one-cell organism acquire genetic material? When it split, how could it give something to its offspring that it doesn't have? How can a mutation introduce genetic information that isn't already present?

A mutation is caused by a misreplication of the DNA. A sequence might get cut out, or added in the wrong place, or one base replaced by another, or... If a sequence is added in a different place on the DNA strand, and causes different characteristics, then I guess it's true in one sense that no new information has been added. But it's a trivial sense. It's like saying that by rearranging words that have already been used in other contexts, I'm creating no new information in this post. The base pair sequences are very simple in themselves, but it's what they do in certain sequences and combinations that makes them powerful.

In your example, if feathers are a completely new thing in the world, that is adaptive for certain purposes... then whether it's new genetic information or not, it's a new characteristic. Add enough new characteristics and you have a new species.

Two thoughts on this:

1) Theoretically true but this has not been observed to take place. It is speculated that some fossils show evidence of this but the observers' worldview plays a lot into their speculation.

2) This still doesn't explain how new genetic information is added to our one-cell organism that is supposedly the common ancestor of all life on the planet.

1) There is no way that it can ever be directly observed to take place because our life spans are so short and the time scales required are so long. New species (unable to interbreed) have been observed, but since they look the same to an untrained observer creationists will not accept this as an instance of speciation. No-one is ever going to see a cat turn into a dog in the lab - nd evolution never claimed they would, so this is not a valid test of evolutionary theory.

2) Even a one-celled organism already has an incredibly complex genome. Many bacteria have a couple of thousand genes, for example, and humans have only 30,000. And, as discussed above, adding genes doesn't require adding new genetic information in the 'adding from external' sense you're talking about, it can arise through mutations which are essentially reshufflings of existing sequences. One intriguing possibility for the addition of genetic material is that bacterial gene sequences have been found intact in fruit fly genomes. It's possible genes from other species can be incorporated. This is still very cutting edge.

The bottom line is that 'no new genetic information' is half a straw man and 'no new genetic information added by natural selection' is a whole one.

If life on Earth started out as naturalists propose, it would have been the most simplest of unicellular organisms. (Of course I don't think any of us here believe that is how life started) Using the alphabet analogy, if we start out with just ABC, how are we going to get to the Library of Congress? Before we can even start making new words (through mutation) we need to add a lot of new letters.



The point is that it is not testable. If it is not testable than arguably, it isn't science. But I am the first to say we have to get beyond science in our study of origins.

Nope, the point is that this test - observation of a visible species change within a human lifetime - is not a prediction that evolutionary theory makes. It is invalid to try to test a theory using a prediction that that theory does not make.

It is true that evolutionary theory is not testable using direct evidence, only indirect evidence. But that is also true of subatomic particles. We cannot observe them directly, only deserve their interactions and make inferences about their nature. Do you wish to make the claim that protons and neutrons are 'not science'?

I am not talking about me. I am talking about the arena of ideas and things which are discussed by others. What I want really has nothing to do with the discussion.

What is the indirect evidence that organic life evolved from non-organic matter? That is what is said to be untestable. How could this supposedly unicellular organism acquire new genetic material so mutations could cause more complex species?

I am not aware that it has been observed in recorded human history - going back some 5,000 years. But then, 5,000 years is only a drop in the bucket for naturalists.

And the key to this is that humans have been active in breeding animals but have never turned one species into another. However, even if they did, that would not prove natural selection capable of doing it. Natural selection works by random acts. Humans breeding animals is... intelligent design. Rather than proving evolution, if scientists are able to create a new species it only serves to prove intelligent design.

Yeah, I misspoke, since you have become, for this discussion, the voice of a certain position.

Let me rephrase: I don't see creationists consistently claiming that protons and neutrons are 'just a theory' or 'not science'. But the same kinds of indirect evidence (yes, and assumptions) underlie the processes we use to understand subatomic particles as those we use to understand the origin, proliferation and complexity of life.

Sometimes it's called artificial selection.

I have not read where creationists are critical of that. The questions bare repeating. What is the indirect evidence that organic life evolved from non-organic matter? How could this supposedly unicellular organism acquire new genetic material so mutations could cause more complex species?

Two different questions. The first is an acknowledged very difficult one, with only tentative theories to explain it. I'll have a better go at the second when I have a litle more time later today.

But the fact that creationists are *not* critical of subatomic particle physics is *exactly* my point. Subatomic particle physics relies entirely on indirect evidence. So does evolution. If creationists criticise one, then they should criticise the other in order to be logically consistent.

[quote]consistent/quote], you want What!!

Here's something on new genetic information: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/new_info.html

Very interesting, but sensible and logical. We, speck of dust in the universe, simply do not have the capacity to understand the process of creation that God did on this earth. We put far to many limits on Him. I don't see anything in the article that would deny a supreme creator/designer...I believe the whole process of genetics points toward such a being! (don't ask me me for a valid explanation)

I don't see how the article explains how a very simple unicellular organism could acquire new genetic material so mutations could cause more complex species. And that is science.

In the study of origins we not only have to look at science, but also mathematics. What is the probability of certain things happening even if they are possible? In all honestly, the odds of God putting all the animals on the ark for a year are significantly greater than some of these scientific theories. We shouldn't lose sight of that in discussing origins.

I can't address subatomic particles because I am just not well versed in that at all. The indirect evidence for macro-evolution as a lot to do with the observer's worldview. There is a lot a circular reasoning that goes on in the "science" or origins. I don't know if that exists in the science of subatomic particles or not.

What I understand Bravus to be saying is this:

• In biology, much of what is understood about evolution is suggested by the results of processes that we never actually see, as we don't live long enough to see them happen. So in that sense, we never see certain things happen, but we do see the results of what might be predicted by the evidence we do see.
• Scientists can't see subatomic particles either, but they still know about protons and neutrons (which I've personally never completely understood but take their word for it).

One could, perhaps, say that scientists are making it all up. But they can't all be making it up.

Here is an argument that concerns genetic mutation my basic question is this...why are there no monsters?

There is another basic understanding of evolution that is contrary to the world around us.
I refer to this as the "99 snafus principle." This argument uses the claim that 99% of mutations
are "bad." (It is more like 100% of mutations are bad but we will use this argument anyhow.)
Imagine that you are an animal like a fish that has many, many eggs at once. Now let's say that
you have 100 eggs and 99 of them are bad. There are also other fish around so your children
won't have to marry each other. Let's us say now that 50 of your bad children die of genetic
disease. Why only 50 of them? Because many, many genetic diseases are survivable. Let's
say 10 of them that survived can't reproduce because they have genetically bad fins and can't
catch up with their potential mates, who swim too fast. Now the next generation of fish in your
"devonian pond" have a 39 to 1 chance of getting a genetic anomaly.

The 99 Snafus Principle states; if evolution is true then there will always be more two
headed dogs than there are highly evolved dogs because two-headed dogs can STILL
reproduce. Where are all the two headed dogs, or the dogs with two tails? If there can be major
changes like a "monkey" gaining an opposable thumb, then where are the major survivable
diseases like maybe a race of monkeys with 7 fingers on one hand? The 99 snafus principle
explains that there should be loads of animals that are obviously "asymmetrical" and deformed
but all animals have a relative amount of everything. Remember just because you are not fit
does not mean you won't survive. I think evolutionists, accidentally, missed this point. To
reiterate, why are animals so "perfect."

This is based on a misunderstanding: natural selection selects for the individuals that are *best* adapted to the environment. A two headed dog might survive, but it will have all sorts of problems surviving that a normal dog won't. (leaving aside that two-headedness is definitely a defect that occurs to the embryo in gestation, not a genetic change, so there is no gene for it that can be passed on)

It's true that the vast majority of mutations are unfavourable, but it's not true that 50% or anything like it are survivable. We are fearfully and wonderfully made and finely balanced, and it doesn't take a lot of mutation to make us unviable. But of those creatures with unfavourable mutations that nonetheless survive, they will be less well adapted to hunt or forage, less likely to be able to attract a mate, less likely to be fertile and able to breed, and so on and so on.

To repeat: over time and sufficient trials, natural selection selects for the *best* adapted genes for a particular environment and ecological niche.

Bravus that is an interesting theory but maybe that is why evolution is such a problem. You did not really respond with evidence you responded with theory. You are using natural selection to prove natural selection.

If an animal was born with an ear on it's back or an extra finger do you really think they would be wiped out through natural selection. It just doesn't add up! All animals are basically the same this is weird to me, randomness should create more disorganised yet still efficient species. Why are there no monsters, I reiterate.

What prevents a relatively large precentage of monsterish creatures from existing? Does having an extra finger or an extra eye prevent a creature from surviving and reproducing?

My theoretical response is built on evidence: there are no monsters. Creatures are well adapted for their environments. I agree that that evidence can also be interpreted as evidence for creation, so there's not a lot of point in citing it. The theory I described can account for the observed way the world is.

And again, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of biology - the kinds of macro defects that you describe are not mutations, they are birth defects and are not inheritable.

And finally - have you *looked* at how weird and wonderful some of the critters out there are?

That is what I mean when I say you are using evolution to prove evolution.

Are you sure you are telling the truth?

Read carefully what I said about growing an opposable thumb and therefore being able to grow "seven fingers on one hand" I never said anyone had to grow anything "instantly."

I will repeat my question, if an animal can have major changes like gaining an opposable thumb why can't an animal gain an ear on it's back.
I think the misunderstanding is in your imagination, it is really annoying when people promoting evolution use the misunderstanding argument. If you read my original post carefully then you will see I made no claim of macro change, I actually intentionally used the opposable thumb argument for this very reason.

If an ear on a creature's back improved its fitness for survival in its environment, then yes, it could evolve. Apparently it doesn't, because it hasn't.

I did read your post carefully, but didn't read your mind: the examples you gave, to state it a little more carefully, are things that are more typically birth defects than not.

If something like a seventh finger were to evolve, it would have to happen over many, many generations. It would have to provide a significant survival advantage over six fingers in order to evolve. Again, apparently it doesn't, because it hasn't.

You're arguing in terms of survivability for a single generation, but multiple generations are required. I'm not using the misunderstanding argument as a putdown, or to try to win points, I'm using it because the point you're making seems to me to be a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. I'm very happy to stop using the word and the argument, and to just talk in terms of the theories being put down. I don't want a fight with you, here or in any other thread, I want to discuss the issues thoughtfully and in a friendly way. I apologise if my rhetorical style felt unfriendly, it was not meant to.

So, how about it? Your argument (as I understand it) is that something can be developed if it does not provide a survival disadvantage. My understanding of evolutionary theory is that something will evolve only if it provides a survival advantage.

That is my major argument we are on the same page now. Perfect evolution is not random evolution. There is a missing link between random and perfect. Randomness leads to survivable weaknesses, if you had a counterargument it would need to involve an explanation of a mechanism that forces evolutionary perfection.

The 99 snafus principle is claiming that there would be many many monsters or animals with pointless mutations. You need a real world explanation for why there are no "monsters." You can't counter me by preaching evolution. Remember theoretical responses are different from factual responses, survival of the fitest is a theoretical response, it is not a factual response. To respond to the 99 snafus principle scientifically you would have to list some mechanism that causes only the fit to survive and not the random-luckiest.

A few quick points:

1. The full rendering of the acronym 'snafu' that I'm most familiar with contains the F word, so I'm not so sure you want to keep using it on a Christian forum, but that's entirely your choice.

2. I'm not preaching anything. I'm not an evolutionist, I'm a science educator. All I try to do here is challenge what I believe to be bad science. I don't actually have a firm position on origins myself, just a lot of questions.

3. 'Perfect evolution' is not a useful concept. Evolution is not headed toward a particular goal: what is, just is.



There definitely are monsters. They are born all the time. What you're asking is why there are no true breeding lines of monsters. That's a completely different question. I've tried to answer it as best I can, but I'll have another go below.



I have listed such a mechanism: natural selection. It's the only answer evolution gives to this question, so if you're not satisfied with that, you'll remain unsatisfied with evolution, which is unsurprising.

My point is that natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the facts as they exist. I am making no strong statement about whether it is *the* explanation: the explanation may well be God's special creation and active intervention. But from a scientific perspective, it is the best answer available in the absence of ongoing miracles.

You haven't responded to my detailed point above: your claim essentially is that mutations that do not offer a disadvantage will breed true. My counterclaim - and what I understand to be the dominant scientific theory - is that it is only mutations that offer a survival advantage that will breed true and be enhanced through natural selection.

What about social evolution? Is it subject to the same rules?



My suspicion is that it is. Whether 'software', cultural, or 'hardware', genetic.

Not sure, D - there seem to be an awful lot of people around who ain't that well adapted to their (social) environment!

takes time :)

well one example is - humans have the hardware for complicated and written comunication, which has worked out well for them. of course it has both positive and negative social uses. but evolution doesn't really care about "positive" and "negative" social values - just as long as life is able to make more life under whatever circumstances - that's all that matters - that's considered positive by evolution's values. right?

That is my point. Except for evolution there is no reason to believe in natural selection. Show me another manifistation of natural selection.

In the real world it is survival of the luckiest.

I will explain this as carefully as possible.
In the real world it is survival of the luckiest, an argument that agrees with the Bible.

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race [is] not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all"

Just a warning the Bible does not believe in survival of the fittest only survival of the luckiest. I believe the Bible's claim is scientifically accurate; no form of strength guarantees success, it is all luck and chance.

I will put this in science talk for you, instead of monsters I will say this. The Bible claims and the real world proves that it is survival of the luckiest, then to disprove the Bible you HAVE to explain why there aren't a large amount of vestigial limbs or parts.
To explain the question plainly How does evolution prevent more vestigial limbs, like a finger eventually growing on your back or something.

If you were to grow a finger on your back how would evolution prevent you from reproducing? You can't respond with a theoretical argument you have to give a factual mechanism. DNA is a mechanism, survival of the fittest is a theory. You have to respond with a mechanism for it to be a scientific response.

Many years ago I remember the tale of the months in an industrial city. It was noticed that as industrial smog changed the colours of the surfaces available to a certain species of moth, those moths survived whose markings were offered better camouflage by the polluted surfaces. This was cited as natural selection.


In the bacterial world, many bugs have the ability to become resistent to antibiotics. In hospitals, these germs are found quite commonly but they are much less common in an environment where antibiotics are not prevalent. Presumably that is because diverting cell resources to the production of unnecessary enzymes to break down the antibiotics confers no survival advantage in that environment.

I think it is very hard to argue that natural selection (of possibly random mutations) does not occur. What this proves needs further consideration.

Evolution appears to work not only by survival of the fittest, but by the death of the weaker, and of the unfit. Without death,it just would not work. The survival of the fit (better adapted) is a by-product of the death of the poorly adapted.

Interesting point of view.....which is of course correct.

Nishaun, this is my last attempt at this.

A finger is an incredibly complex thing. It contains muscles, nerves, blood vessels and tendons, all arranged in particular very precise ways. Look at one of your fingers for a moment, and think about all the things you can do with it.

Now, for a finger to arise in an evolutionary context takes a long time and many, many steps. A finger does not just magically appear in a single individual in a single generation. If it did, as I said earlier, it would not have evolved, it would be a birth defect. It would not be encoded in the DNA. Therefore it would not be inheritable. Whether it stops the creature breeding or not is largely irrelevant, because it will not be carried on.

So again, are you talking about individual creatures with birth defects, or about genetic lines that breed true with a particular characteristic?

If it's the latter, then the finger (or ear) on the back would start as a small fleshy nodule. That would have to offer some kind of advantage that increased the survival/breeding chances of the individuals having it enough to make it more likely that the gene for the nodule was passed on than for the genes of creatures without the nodule. The nodule would then have to be refined through an *extremely* long sequence of random but favourable mutations (keeping in mind that the vast majority of mutations are unfavourable, as you said). This would literally take millions of years to occur.

I'm not 'proving evolution using evolution' as you've repeatedly claimed. Rather, I'm explaining the way in which evolutionary theory accounts for the world we see around us. It's all I can do, because I can't 'prove' evolution or natural selection in any other way than through inferences about the world around us. And I recognise that other sets of inferences are possible.

You've said you don't like the 'misunderstanding' statement, and I respect that. But I do think you may be confused about the probabilistic basis of natural selection. This occurs, not for an individual, but for a population. Agreed, a finger on your back will not stop an individual from surviving or reproducing. But across the whole population, will individuals with fingers on their backs be more likely or less likely than individuals without to successfully breed? That is the mechanism, so looking at the case of a single individual does not help.

One further note: "survival of the fittest" is an oxymoron, since "fittest" in this instance simply means "most likely to survive". And we found out which is most likely to survive through seeing which do survive. So the phrase is reduced to "survival of the survivors": oxymoron.

But the exact same analysis applies to your proposed alternative locution "survival of the luckiest". If you're lucky, you get to survive, so we're back to "survival of the survivors".

Thanks D.Allen you have given me an actual response, Bravus has been ignoring my actual question. I will respond to you with this question, how does evolution guarantee the death of the weak and prevent more pointless mutations (like three eyed monsters)? That is the mechanism I am looking for.

Thanks for your answer but I have made no such argument. Bravus was arguing against my 99 snafus principle (read back if you missed it). He used natural selection as a counter argument. The basis of the principle is that because of randomness in this world, many many deformities would also occur alongside the perfections. I believe the probability of the deformed surviving is far greater than a lucky positive change. So the mechanism I was searching for is a mechanism that ensures the death of the weak.

I'm not an expert, but I'll hazard the statement that "evolution" doesn't guarantee anything itself. It is just an explanation of how things work. "Environment" is an all important factor. Life in the ocean, for example, has different problems to overcome. There are all sorts of weird animals down there that could not survive up here on dry land. Animals with eyes on the ends of "stalks" and intelligent octopi with 8? arms with suckers on them - no bones except it's beak.

To move through water, air, or on land all require different body forms for optional performance.

If food is scarce only those who move the fastest, will get any. The slower ones die off.

So what we consider a monster here on dry land, might in just the right environment be the ones better able to get everything they need from that special environment. The ancestors of the octopus never survived on dry land (if ever they were on it) long enough to become the octopus we now know about.

Evolutionary theory as a theory doesn't guarantee anything. It's just the "facts of life" - if you can't keep up with the rest they will beat you out of your share. If you can't compete, they will crush you.

About adaptive mutations from wikipedia:

"A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[7] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People who had this mutation were able to survive infection; thus, its frequency in the population increased.[8] It could also explain why this mutation is not found in Africa where the bubonic plague never reached. Newer theory says the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation has been caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[9]

So it seems that if the AIDS virus had its way, those without the CCR5 mutation would die off and the human race would have evolved as a whole. Only those with the mutation would live. Of course medicine is working to find a better way, a quicker way, and we all hope for success.

cool! His descendants i don't believe are going to take over the earth, and i don't think the extra digits are going to be a problem either for his offspring who may carry the trait. But it is there in the gene pool,- if ever needed.

I haven't avoided the question, I've answered it repeatedly: you just won't accept the answer.

There's no specific mechanism that ensures an individual weak organism will die - it may well live. But over the long term, multiple generations, and across a whole species, more of the healthier, better adapted organisms will survive and breed than the weak and sickly organisms. It doesn't even require the complete dying out of the weaker one... all it needs is a tiny statistical edge, and over time the better adapted species will prevail.

That is the answer, it is clear, plausible and explains our observations. Again, if you're not satisfied with that answer you're not satisfied with the evolutionary mechanism, but since that is a given already with your attitude and position, there's not much further to discuss.

Oh, another good answer. You actually targeted my actual question again you are on a role, unlike some people.

But that is my actual argument, do you think El Pulpo has a hard time surviving?

I will reiterate my argument, if changes are truly random then you would have a whole race of El Pulpos.

In my "99 snafus principle" I claim that only 50% would die off in a truly random situation.
50% is not a specific number I use this number to explain that if you truly used randomness and had a hundred children; surviving and not surviving is actually 50/50. There are sooo many ways creatures can die. It is true that if you are too deformed you may not be able to reproduce so I added another 10% that survive but can't reproduce.

I am just asking you to be mathematically reasonable, in a 100% random situation, survivability should be fifty-fifty. But fifty-fifty is NOT natural selection.

I was going to say, no more hard than either Marilyn Monroe (she had 6 toes) or Anne Boleyn (she had 6 fingers)

But then I thought to myself, neither Marilyn Monroe nor Anne Boleyn were known for their longevity.

So, just forget this interjection and carry on as before!!!

Isn't the crux of the matter that the changes are random, but their survival is not?

My apologies if I am missing your point, but that is the way I see this issue.

Absolutely correct, Nan.

It is very clear that nishaun does not genuinely understand natural selection. He is going to have to keep railing in a vacuum, because I've an