Evolution and Creation an Honest Question

[Dymanic]

Not sure if this was due to a mutation, but it seems strong evidence of what a fundie would call Macro evolution.

What a fundie would call macroevolution would be something along the lines of elephants suddenly sprouting wings. There aren't enough hours in a day to spend much time worrying about what fundies think.

Also, I thought the gene was the unit of selection; not the person and not the species.

Is this wrong?

That is the currently prevailing wisdom.

So here we have mutations (survivable) causing short legs, and we can all think of environments where short legs might be an advantage so is it not 'case closed'? here's a mututation (see the piccy!) if it lived in tunnels it would be beneficial so please go away and invent some other silly challenge to evolution.

Well, not so fast. It is also be easy to become confused about the business of a "gene for short legs", especially when the discussion includes genetic disorders such as achondroplasty. (To make matters worse, at some point, just what the term "gene" refers to can get a little fuzzy). There are genes that make parts like muscles and tendons and bones, and genes that basically say "make more (or less) of that stuff here." Achondroplasty is a scrambling of the instructions that occurs when an individual inherits one normal copy of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 gene and one mutant copy; what should have been cartilage comes out as bone. Whether it is survivable depends on how many copies of the mutant gene are inherited; two copies is a death sentence, so selective pressure for dwarfism would have to be pretty strong to preserve the mutation, and the population has to maintain a certain proportion of individuals who are at least heterozygous for the gene, if not free of it completely. Either way, it's not the same thing as inheritance of a trait such as short stature which does not result from a genetic abnormality.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hey I'm personally a christian who believes in evolution. One question I've often heard though I don't know a good answer for. Simply put a lot of creationists say that there is no known examples of a beneficial mutation. Can any one give me an example? I"m not saying it proves or disproves any thing but its a good question.

Sometimes mutations are both beneficial and harmful. The gene for cystic fibrosis is very harmful when you've got two copies, but it is present in large numbers of people, especially in Europe. It turns out that when you are heterozygous for this gene (when you've got one copy of the CF gene and one "good" gene) you may have partial immunity to bubonic plague. This means that when 50% of the population were being wiped out by plague, this mutation was beneficial. Now it's harmful.

 

[hammegk]

... Not sure if this was due to a mutation, but it seems strong evidence of what a fundie would call Macro evolution.

I don't know how a fundie would see it, but I'd just say a mosquito is a mosquito; albeit a good example of within-species mutation.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I don't know how a fundie would see it, but I'd just say a mosquito is a mosquito; albeit a good example of within-species mutation.

And thus, hammy distorts the definition of "species", as well as ignoring the "tree of life" nature of evolutionary descent.

 

[Dragon]

And thus, hammy distorts the definition of "species", as well as ignoring the "tree of life" nature of evolutionary descent.

It's déjà vu all over again ...

 

[CFLarsen]

Hey I'm personally a christian who believes in evolution. One question I've often heard though I don't know a good answer for. Simply put a lot of creationists say that there is no known examples of a beneficial mutation. Can any one give me an example? I"m not saying it proves or disproves any thing but its a good question.

You shouldn't believe in evolution. Here's why.

 

[Bronze Dog]

It's déjà vu all over again ...

I even have a little text document here at the office with some things I'd copy/paste for various trolls. Here's one I think I reserved for times when hammy would say evolution is unfalsifiable:

I have this terrible feeling of déjà vu

 

[articulett]

Even in a species sense, therefore, sickle-cell is a beneficial trait as long as you can't control malaria.

It's only now that we can control malaria that the tables are turned.

You explained it better than I, though I suspect the original poster is not really interested in the answer.

Sickle cell is also controllable in most cases--it can be a very unpleasant disease, but for some people, the effects are scarcely noticeable.

I want to reiterate that a carrier of sickle trait as a survival advantage without the ill effects of carrying two copies of the gene.

Albinism is a readily recognized autosomal recessive trait that carriers seldom know that they carry. You might carry a gene for albinism, but it is unlikely that you'd ever know it unless you produced a child with another carrier and that child was among the 25% of such conceptions that carried both copy of the gene--and was, thus, an albino.

 

[articulett]

Sickle cell is an example of one of the points I've seen made. Some mutations that can be advantageous also have a massive draw back. Its hard for most people(myself included to be completely honest) to see mutations like sickle cell as a desirable trait for a new species.

When people use terms like "to be completely honest"--it usually is an indication that they are not being so. "Trust m"e, usually means (don't trust me). Truth doesn't need disclaimers. If I'm being hard on you, KevinM, it is because I've developed antenna for lame creationist arguments that reveal a seemingly purposeful misunderstanding of scientific terms and a failure to incorporate or even "compute" the patient explanations and links provided by those who interpret the question as a sincere inquiry.

A brain seeped in religion and the idea that faith and feelings can lead to truth--is a brain not necessarily amenable to logic.

 

[delphi_ote]

I don't know how a fundie would see it, but I'd just say a mosquito is a mosquito; albeit a good example of within-species mutation.

Hammy's back to his totally arbitrary classification of species again. Apparently biologists should all be consulting him whenever they want to determine species.

 

[hammegk]

And thus, hammy distorts the definition of "species", as well as ignoring the "tree of life" nature of evolutionary descent.

I suppose we could discuss "'tree of life' nature", parallel development, and the true number of actual, ancestral, abiogenesis events. Got data?

I even have a little text document here at the office with some things I'd copy/paste for various trolls. Here's one I think I reserved for times when hammy would say evolution is unfalsifiable:

All just-so-stories, subject to change without notice, are unfalsifiable ...

Hammy's back to his totally arbitrary classification of species again. Apparently biologists should all be consulting him whenever they want to determine species.

Species definitions: More just-so-stories, set in silly putty rather than something permanent, also subject to change without notice. Your use of arbitrary is correct about the definitions, but that's not something I've done.

 

[Soapy Sam]

thats inevitably pointed out is the question of the long haul. Its true that in the short term it can allow that person to outsurvive another against malaria. In the long run though it doesn't help the species surivve. For a good example of a beneficial mutation some thing clear cut and proven is a better choice then a disease that will save a person one day and endanger his life the next.

(My emphasis).

Kevin, in that one line you have your answer. Natural selection does not work on species. The whole "Origin of Species" issue is a red herring. "Species" is a human concept, an artificial taxonomic construct. Individual creatures are real; they really live and die and are subject to selective pressure. Forget about species. Concentrate on individuals.

Natural selection works on gene combinations and it does so through individual creatures.

 

[delphi_ote]

Species definitions: More just-so-stories, set in silly putty rather than something permanent, also subject to change without notice. Your use of arbitrary is correct about the definitions, but that's not something I've done.

If there's no such thing as species, then there's no such thing as "kinds."

 

[Bronze Dog]

Funny how hammy completely ignores the arguments, as well as the self-defeating nature of his arguments. I think he knows absolutely nothing about how evolution works, and is just parroting old canards like a bot.

Of course, there's plenty of information gathering that shapes the history of evolution, if hammy'd bother to pay attention.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey I'm personally a christian who believes in evolution. One question I've often heard though I don't know a good answer for. Simply put a lot of creationists say that there is no known examples of a beneficial mutation. Can any one give me an example? I"m not saying it proves or disproves any thing but its a good question.

That question is absurd on its face. If there were no good mutations then how did anything evolve? Genetic science can show you the details of how an organism progresses from A to B. Mutations are either positive, negative or neutral. The statement all mutations are negative is a naive claim made by propagandists. It sounds good therefore it must be true. It isn't!

Next time you hear the question bring up the subject of antibiotic resistance. Mutations are good for the bacteria and bad for us. Explain that.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Next time you hear the question bring up the subject of antibiotic resistance. Mutations are good for the bacteria and bad for us.

Reminds me of a point someone brought up against ID. Cross-purposes: A rabbit's body is a resource, but the rabbit has a different purpose in mind for its body than the wolf chasing it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Reminds me of a point someone brought up against ID. Cross-purposes: A rabbit's body is a resource, but the rabbit has a different purpose in mind for its body than the wolf chasing it.

I like it.

 

[hammegk]

... I think he knows absolutely nothing about how evolution works, and is just parroting old canards like a bot.

I think you will not win the $1000000 as a clairvoyant. I suspect I can defend neo-Darwinism as well as most here, and better than many.

Unfortunately, my choice of monism as objective idealism precludes my belief in the correctness of that defense. Sorry. Materialists -- actual materialists --have no other possibility available other than neo-Darwinism in current form. Dualists believe in non-sense whether they accept neo-Darwinism or not.

But feel free to blather on about what an uninformed dunce I am if such pleases you.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I think you will not win the $1000000 as a clairvoyant. I suspect I can defend neo-Darwinism as well as most here, and better than many.

Unfortunately, my choice of monism as objective idealism precludes my belief in the correctness of that defense. Sorry. Materialists -- actual materialists --have no other possibility available other than neo-Darwinism in current form. Dualists believe in non-sense whether they accept neo-Darwinism or not.

But feel free to blather on about what an uninformed dunce I am if such pleases you.

And thus we move to the pointless derail into hammy's fetish for materialism vs. dualism vs. idealism, not to mention a claim of superior knowledge despite his repetition of points that have been refuted so many times talkorigins made an index to save us the trouble of typing refutations all day.

And, of course, materialists can have alternatives. A good one just hasn't come along yet, or at least none that I've known.

 

[hammegk]

Someday even you may realize that discussing points and refuting points are not the same.

TalkOrigins provides a good discussion of many points.

And, of course, materialists can have alternatives. A good one just hasn't come along yet, or at least none that I've known.

When a better one does come along, it needs to better address catastrophism as the reason for major genotype change, leading to true phenotype change & speciation.