help with evolution

[Grand_Lunar]

I am currently engaged with a debate with someone concerning evolvution.

The individual is convinced of creationism. In trying to discuss it with him, he provides this arguement:

The concept of natural selection was the basis of Darwinism. This assertion is stressed even in the title of the book in which Darwin proposed his theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection…

Natural selection is based on the assumption that in nature there is a constant struggle for survival. It favors organisms with traits that best enable them to cope with pressures exerted by the environment. At the end of this struggle, the strongest ones, the ones most suited to natural conditions, survive. For example, in a herd of deer under threat from predators, those individuals that can run fastest will naturally survive. As a consequence, the herd of deer will eventually consist of only fast-running individuals.

However, no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another species. The weak deer are eliminated, the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes of selection, deer continue to exist as deer.

The deer example is true for all species. In any population, natural selection only eliminates those weak, or unsuited individuals who are unable to adapt to the natural conditions in their habitat. It does not produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot cause anything to evolve. Darwin, too, accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 127) That is why neo-Darwinism had to add the mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic information to the concept of natural selection.

And after I tried to provide a rebuttal, he answers with this:

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.(B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988)

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?(Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159.)

I am finding myself out of my league. I know he is wrong, but cannot provide a good rebuttal to it. Assistance please? The Grand Lunar shall reward you with a new moon!

[SirBlack]

Take a look around TalkOrigins. Lots of good information there refuting various creationist claims. Specifically, this article seems quite relevant to this creationist's claims.

[montebianco]

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?

Perhaps because the harmful ones are weeded out by natural selection?

[novaderrik]

not all mutations are "bad", and not all are "good". it depends on how it fits in with the rest of the traits of the individual that has that particular mutation.
using the deer as an example, the deer that are born with some wort of a mutation that makes them not able to run very fast will be more likely to get eaten by a predator. the faster deer will tend to have a higher survival rate, and thus will be more likely to breed and pass that particular genetic mutation that made them faster onto their offspring. and if a deer is born with a mutation that makes them able to detect a predator earlier than the others in the herd- like, say, a better sense of smell or hearing- they will be more likely to survive and pass their mutated genes on to succeeding generations, until over time, the gene is prevalent in the entire population.
somewhere along the line, some of the deer will wonder away fro mthe herd and break off into their own population, and might not carry that particular gene. so you end up with 2 different species over time.
if you carry that out over spans of millions of years- things changing one gene and one generation at a time- you can start to grasp how this world has so many different species of deer-like creatures in it. each one is adapted to it's particular environment, since the deer that aren't born with the proper traits to survive in a given place will be weeded out over time- as the saying goes "only the strong survive".
well, i guess sometimes luck is involved, but i'd guess that would be a short term deal that would take care of itself over time...

[HenrikOlsen]

His fundamental flaw is that he can't see that the statement "almost all mutations are harmful" has the logical conclusion "beneficial mutations happen."
This is a clear case for "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" or in this case "expands your potential for growth."

He's arguing from a too simplistic idea of how cells and evolution work.

[grant hutchison]

It's also nonsense to say that no beneficial mutation has ever been detected.
Sickle cell trait is caused by a single mutation in the amino acid sequence of haemoglobin, it renders the individual more resistant to malaria, and new mutations (rather than inherited trait) have been identified.
It is prevalent in malarial regions like sub-Saharan Africa, where it prolongs the average lifespan of those who have a single copy of the sickle cell gene. The new gene would presumably have taken over entirely, if it weren't for the fact that an individual with two copies of the new haemoglobin gene (one inherited from each parent) has sickle cell disease, which is lethal. So the mutated gene has achieved a balance in the population: it is passed on readily by those who benefit from a single copy of the gene, but kills those who end up with two copies of the gene. It neither takes over entirely nor fades away: quite a nice demonstration of how evolution works, but definitely a sign of carelessness in an intelligent creator.

Grant Hutchison

[HenrikOlsen]

That's also a great example why it's senseless to talk about good or bad mutations as it is both, depending on the environment the organism carrying it lives in.

By the way, just to avoid a strawman, I think his argument was that no beneficial mutation has been observed that happened while we have been looking.
The problem is that since it's unknown whether a mutation is beneficial or not until it's been expressed, and selected for, then whether current mutations are beneficial may not be known for tens of thousands of years.

[grant hutchison]

Another example of beneficial mutation, easily observable during a human life-time, is the constant shifting of surface antigens on flu viruses. This occurs because of mutations that alter the structure of surface proteins in the virus capsule (the virus has no means of repairing errors in its genetic material, so its mutation rate is high). These constant surface changes make the virus harder for the host immune systems to track from one epidemic to the next, so the virus is "fitter" at passing on its genetic material because of its high mutation rate.

Grant Hutchison

[HenrikOlsen]

Playing devil's advocate here, couldn't that be seen not as mutations per se but instead as the virus specifically having low presicion when copying those regions. Sounds like a good design.

[grant hutchison]

Playing devil's advocate here, couldn't that be seen not as mutations per se but instead as the virus specifically having low presicion when copying those regions. Sounds like a good design.

In which case it's bad design that smallpox and the other DNA viruses copy their surface proteins genes with such fidelity that a survived infection gives life-long immunity, making them easy to vaccinate against. Unless the Designer is keen for us to die of flu but not of smallpox.
One would also need to explain why the virus was similarly sloppy in copying genes for its own internal mechanics, laying itself open to lethal transcription errors.
The design argument could be unlimbered to apply to any beneficial mutation: "That's not a mutation, that's a little design option the Creator allowed so that sickle cell trait was available when required." My understanding of ID, however, is that the argument is supposed to be compelling without such special pleading.

Grant Hutchison

[HenrikOlsen]

I think we may be getting close to strawman argumentation here, with me setting up strawmen for you to pick apart
Let's stop it here.

[Ken G]

Pick away, those strawmen are good ways to anticipate what creationists might say. I think it is also relevant to note that there would seem to be two very separate timescales on which evolution occurs. On billions of years, you get all kinds of basic cell mechanisms that may be incorporated into all kinds of creatures. Then on millions of years, you get speciation. So I would not be at all surprised if there are fundamental differences in how these two evolutionary mechanisms function, given the huge separation in timescales, or more correctly, volume of the "variation manifold" to coin a (hopefully) self-evident term. For example, I would not be surprised if sexual reproduction plays a key role in the latter evolutionary paths that lead to speciation, but not the former, just judging from how many different species use it and how few internal systems would seem to, though I am nobody's evolutionary biologist. Still, it seems to me the real issue for scientists, rather than arguing down creationists, is to gain an understanding of how large the variation manifold would need to be to achieve the kinds of systems we see today, and what processes give access to the necessary variation space. How close are we to answers to these types of quantitative questions?

[George]

The individual is convinced of creationism. In trying to discuss it with him, he provides this arguement:

...That is, it cannot cause anything to evolve. Darwin, too, accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 127)

The quote of Darwin is taken badly out of context. Natural selection advances, for good or bad, when changes occur, whether environmental or in the individual. Within Darwin's last paragraph of chapter II, he states "...varieties, as we shall hereafter see, tend to become converted into new and distinct species." Prior to Darwin, the basic tenets of evolution were transmutation (new species formed) and naturalism (as opposed to supernatural elements). Darwin proposed branching and natural selection, but this was unpopular because it lacked devine direction, I believe.

It sounds like you are debating with an old-Earth creationist, at least, or so I am guessing. Many feel compelled to make God the creator of every individual species. This is the micro vs. macro evolution issue. They will allow evolution within each species, but not allow new species.

There are religious arguments which support evolution (e.g. Cain's wife), but I am reluctant to go there here where their ware and tare may cause the board's clause to pause my direction. [/cornjunctive]

[Romanus]

Put this in his pipe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm

In any event, don't waste your time talking to these people; it's not about logic for them, it's about faith, and that's something that no one can effectively argue against. Either they'll come around when they're ready, or they won't--it's in God's hands.

(tongue firmly in-cheek)

[Ken G]

Still, it's not a new species of snake. We need better examples of actual speciation happening due to evolution. I presume the problem is timescale-- 70 years for the snakes in that link, but a million for a new species?

[montebianco]

When I read the thread title, I thought someone was having trouble evolving...

[grant hutchison]

Still, it's not a new species of snake.

That's right: it's an example similar to the selection for faster deer. Same snake, slightly different body plan. When you consider that all the various breeds of domestic dog in existence today constitute a single species, this isn't going to be a winning argument.
The creationist here doesn't say so directly, but it seems to me that his argument is based on the idea that evolution can drive organisms around within the natural variation of their gene-pool, but that it will actively prevent speciation because mutations constitute damaged code and are therefore lethal.
Being able to point to real, advantageous, single base-pair mutations in existence today (such as sickle-cell trait) effectively kills this argument, since it immediately opens the logical door to the possibility of a succession of point mutations, each beneficial or neutral, which can eventually drive the organism entirely away from its original genome.

Lewis Carroll's old wordgame of converting one word to another by a series of single-letter substitutions is a useful analogy, I find.

LOVE
____
____
HATE

Most letter mutations are lethal: "LZVE" or "SOVE" get you nowhere; but "HOVE" or "LAVE" are viable words that are actively useful under unusual circumstances; and they both can get you to "HAVE" at the next step, and thence to "HATE".

Now take away the objective and the fixed number of steps, and just let the thing run, and you have a toy model of evolution, especially if you allow duplications, insertions and deletions.

Grant Hutchison

[Hugh Jass]

I suppose you can define the interspecies variation as changing the font of your word. love is the same species as LOVE.

[aurora]

Still, it's not a new species of snake. We need better examples of actual speciation happening due to evolution. I presume the problem is timescale-- 70 years for the snakes in that link, but a million for a new species?

Talkorigins has a couple of compilations of observed instances of speciation.

Search for it there.

[trinitree88]

Talkorigins has a couple of compilations of observed instances of speciation.

Search for it there.

Question? I thought there was quite a bit of talk about 10 years ago about "master genes"...genes thought to trigger the activation of many other genes. If the mutation occurred in a master gene, several changes occurred simultaneously in the organism involved....and this led to punctuated gradualism in evolution of traits. It happened slowly for a long time, with some abrupt points of more dramatic rates...No?

[George]

I suppose you can define the interspecies variation as changing the font of your word. love is the same species as LOVE.

I like the fantail variety...Dove.

[beskeptical]

All those arguments creationists use are based on very old science. Genetic research shows that random mutations do lead to all the variety of lifeforms we have on the planet as well as all the supposed irreducible components Behe claims couldn't have arisen via single mutations. Turns out when you see the blueprints (DNA), Darwin started us on the right track.

And, by the way, the current term is "selection pressures" not survival traits. There is a difference in that some traits are selected for reasons other than survival though reproducing the traits is the key. Mate selection, tag along traits, neutral traits that just happened to get lots of airtime and so on account for some of the diversity we see today.

[Grand_Lunar]

Thanks to all for your insights.

My "friend" replied with the following statements, claiming a discovery disproving evolution:

Evolution or Creation. Did you know that a new fossil skull has been found in the African country of Chad and has dealt a heavy blow to the evolutionary claims regarding the origin of man. Given considerable space in world-renowned scientific journals and newspapers, this new fossil has shattered the claim that "man evolved from ape-like creatures" so doggedly maintained by Darwinists for the last 150 years. Discovered by the French scientist Michel Brunet, the fossil was given the name Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution." (1)

Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."

The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor."

Ever since the 1920s, evolutionists have claimed that some characteristics of the Australopithecus genus resembled those of human beings, for which reason they have portrayed these extinct creatures as "man's most primitive ancestor." A great deal of evidence disproving that thesis has emerged. For instance, research in the 1990s revealed that Australopithecus did not walk upright, as had been claimed, but walked with a stooped posture just like other apes. The newly-discovered Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil, another ape species that lived 2 million years before Australopithecus, is actually more "human-like" according to evolutionary criteria. In other words, it demolishes the "evolutionary scheme."

From what I gather, he is thinking in the way Besketical says: basing his ideas on old science.

[Grand_Lunar]

When I read the thread title, I thought someone was having trouble evolving...

I AM! Its too slow! Must go faster!

LOL

[Ken G]

From what I gather, he is thinking in the way Besketical says: basing his ideas on old science.

Well in this case, he is using new science, but he is reaching all the wrong conclusions. Part of the problem is foolish use of overly dramatic verbiage by people like that Harvard guy ("small nuclear bomb"? Please.). These overdramatizatons tend to be taken literally by people who don't know any science, and are incorrectly interpreted. A key question in the theory of human evolution is, at what point did our family of creatures split off from the apes we also have today, such as chimpanzees? Every creature on our side of the split is called a hominid, so the question is, what is the oldest hominid? This fossil suggests (but it is still unknown) that the split may have occured about 7 million years ago, not 5 million as was previously thought. That's it. Some "nuclear bomb"! It presents no challenge whatsoever to the overall idea of how humans evolved, it merely alters the timetable slightly. It would be like discovering that the solar system was actually 5.5 billion years old instead of 4.5, an important discovery to be sure, but it would not put astronomy on its ear. We certainly wouldn't say "oh well, the solar system is older than we thought, now we have to completely revisit how stars form. Maybe it's not gravity after all..."

[grant hutchison]

1) The discovery of yet another extinct hominid is exactly what evolution would predict (many failures, few successes), and something of a blow to any creationist who'd like to think that modern humans are unique.

2) Your correspondent seems to accept the strawman concept of "evolutionary progress" - a single chain of ever more advanced species, rather than the real view of a heavily pruned bush of human species.
Even if Sahelanthropus were "more human" than Australopithecus (see below), this would in no way conflict with the "bush" image; only with the delusory "chain of being" model.

3) The suspicion that the species we thought we evolved from might be unrelated to us doesn't make us doubt evolution. If the man I thought was my father turned out not to be, it wouldn't make me doubt how babies were made.

4) Your correspondent needs to stop reading predigested pap from creationist websites, and start reading some original sources. Direct him to the Nature editorial that accompanied the Sahelanthropus discovery paper, and he'll see that evolutionary theory was entirely unrocked by the discovery, and any excitement involved was focussed on the implications for the exact evolutionary lineage of modern humans. He'll also see that Sahelanthropus was not "more human" than Australopithecus: "Put simply, from the back it looks like a chimpanzee, whereas from the front it could pass for a 1.75-million-year-old advanced australopith."

Grant Hutchison

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Personally, I Wish they'd Stop It, With This Quote Mining, crap ...

So What, If So-and-So, Had a Death-Bed Conversion; Even If True, It Doesn't Change The Facts ...

And, The Less Said, About Lucy's, Alleged Knee Joint, The Better!

[beskeptical]

I AM! Its too slow! Must go faster!

LOL

That's hilarious!

[beskeptical]

Thanks to all for your insights.

My "friend" replied with the following statements, claiming a discovery disproving evolution:


From what I gather, he is thinking in the way Besketical says: basing his ideas on old science.

Very much so and in addition, a victim of magical thinking.....

Magic, a single discovery proves my belief in god and the Bible. Everyone else will now see that I was right and they were wrong all along.

Clearly there are many people in this silly 'evolution is wrong crowd' who cling to every hope they will be 'saved' by a new discovery. It's too late. Genetic science has confirmed, Darwin, without any doubt left whatsoever, had the right idea. He even had a lot of the details correct before any revelations on genetic inheritance and the mechanisms involved besides reproduction of successful traits.

[George]

Clearly there are many people in this silly 'evolution is wrong crowd' who cling to every hope they will be 'saved' by a new discovery. It's too late. Genetic science has confirmed, Darwin, without any doubt left whatsoever, had the right idea. He even had a lot of the details correct before any revelations on genetic inheritance and the mechanisms involved besides reproduction of successful traits.

I agree with beskeptical (haven't I seen others say this lately ). It is my understanding Darwin's first edition is considered the best, over his subsequent editions which were tweaked due to influences from others.

His resolve in the face of Lord Kelvin's Fairly Young Earth, (ideas from his heat transfer evidence), extremely little fossil evidence, and no internal mechanism on how heredity could perpetuate traits in tact, is amazing. Too bad he wasn't into Monkish peas as much as pigeons.