Re: Evolution is not a fact

On May 15, 3:00 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"hersheyh" <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:ae22586d-4aec-49e4-98ce-4e833b111734@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On May 5, 12:01 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

I believe from observation of these posts that there
is a misunderstanding going on on both sides of
the argument. If a creationist says that evolution
does not take place, what he is meaning is that
macroevolution does not take place. He does not
consider microevolution to be evolution, but I can
see that the evolutionist does consider microevolution
to be evolution. Microevolution is a name that was
given to what formerly was called variation.

And here I thought (and taught) that the modern name for the ultimate
cause of *all* genetic (and hence relevant to evolution) 'variation',
was 'mutation'. And that such the process of mutation, which produced
variant alleles, was a continually occurring process. The variant
alleles thus produced were then sifted by one of two processes:
selection because the allele (or, more often, allele combinations)
produced variant phenotypes that were differentially affected (wrt
reproductive sucesss) by their local environments or by selectively
neutral drift. Both processes that change the frequency of alleles
(selection for phenotype or neutral drift), of course, require that
the variations (variant alleles) actually exist in the population.

Yes, mutation is a popular newbie term for variation,
but it is not a blanket that covers all variation,

I am well aware of the existence of *phenotypic* variation that is NOT
*genetic* in nature (as well as the existence of quasi-genetic
variation due to odd things like methylation and prion-like events).
But mutation is the only known cause of *genetic* variation and
*genetic* variation is the type of variation that has evolutionary
impact.

and
that is a problem and makes for lack of communication.
Variation is actually originally such as a breed within
a species.

And, of course, such variation is typically genetic in nature. Which
means that it arose by permanent alteration (change in sequence) of
the genome. *Every* example of permanent alteration (change in
sequence) of a genome has either been demonstrated to occur by natural
mutation (in some cases, aided by the addition of mutagens that
increase the rate of mutation) or produces changes that are
indistinguishable from known mutational processes.

Macroevolution is an allele change above the
species level.

What is "an allele change above the species level"? Speciation? All
allele changes occur by altering some existing allele in some existing
organism in some existing population.

How can I respond, since you have not presented a meaningful
definition of macroevolution? You have claimed that macroevolution
requires something that makes no sense, since *all* allele changes are
changes (aka, mutations) of existing alleles in existing species. Are
you thinking of some sort of magical poofing of some sort of magical
alleles into existence at some magical instance? That doesn't sound
like evolution to me. Sounds a bit more like magical poofing
creation?

Yes, it is speciation, or the formation of a new species,
and a DNA change has to take place. This is dependent
upon the definition of the word "species," though.

No definition of species talks about the magical poofing of entire
alleles into existence. No known speciation events *require* such
magical poofing. Again, you seem not to understand how little change
in a genome is required for *speciation*. Speciation is not a process
that magically poofs a cat into existence from a dog parent.
Speciation involves converting one species of cat into two species
that would be clearly recognizable as cats. It takes *repeated*
speciation events from a common ancestor to produce enough difference
so that you would call one creature a cat and the other a dog. But
scientists, unlike you, do not engage in kindergarten taxonomy by
using terms like "kitty" and "doggy".

Creationists do not believe that
macroevolution occurs.

Some evolutionists
believe that the definition of "species" is a
problem.

All biologists *recognize* that *most* of the time, given our limited
time perspective, the identification of different species is
relatively accurate (just as saying that there is a difference between
'shore' and 'sea' is usually pretty obvious). But *because* species
change and some existing species vary, any definition of species will,
at specific times and places, be inadequate because species, like
shorelines, are not forever the same.

How can I put this? What you are saying is said in
very eloquent and efficient words. But to say this
to someone not understanding some of the things in
Biology, the last statement needs a bit more information
in order to be understood clearly. It's very hard to have
much knowledge as do you about a subject and talk to
someone that has lesser knowledge of said given subject.

I am saying that at any given still (if you can call a frame that
lasts 10,000 years a still) in the long motion picture of life on this
planet, you will find that, for any definition of species you use,
*most* organisms will be able to be clearly classified as distinct
species. But, because of evolution, this will not be true in *all*
cases. Some organisms will have been *caught* in the process of
becoming different species. Often this will be observed as a
*subspecies* difference as the climate or other features of the
environment change, with organisms from the extremes being unable to
successfully breed with each other (the biological species
definition). Rana pipiens, the common frog, is an example: Northern
strains cannot produce progeny when mated to Souther strains. Or it
could be species that produce hybrids when they meet, but with the
hybrid being dysfunctional or functional only as a hybrid, but unable,
to a varying extent, exchange genomes with the parent
'species' (sunflowers in the American West are an example). There are
also ring species, subspecies which can mate with one another across
land masses, but at one point the extreme ends exist in the same area
and cannot mate with one another. An example is a chain of beetles
that exist in a circle of subspecies around the Caribbean until the
ends meet in Florida.

What you say in your last sentence comes across as being
probably different than the way you mean it. It sounds like
you are saying that species is difficult to define since what
a species is, changes all the time.

Yes. Species change all the time. But, at any given instance of a
small amount of time (considering all of human written history a small
amount of time), most species boundaries are easy to identify. But
the existence of the blurry boundaries between some organisms in any
species definition is evidence that species is not some static
'forever' state. Those blurry examples would be expected in a
biosphere that evolved and is evolving. Why would it be expected in a
created world?

But that's not at all what
you mean, is it? Don't you think that because of more
complicated understanding about all lifeforms, we realize
now that all things can't fit under the one cover of a single
definition of species? Or do you think that idea is wrong?
I'm also not intending to frustrate you.

Some Creationists agree with that
also.

If you are an example, that is because most Creationists don't have a
clue.

Gee, thanks. Then kudos for your patience.

I hear what you say about mutation, and you are
applying it to being a form of variation.

Mutation is only relevant to *genetic* variation. Mutation, which is
*any* permanent change in a genome, is the type of variation that is
evolutionarily relevant. I can stunt the growth of a plant by where I
plant it, but that is not *genetic* variation, even though it can lead
to the lack of that plant's reproductive success.

But what
I think they earlier meant by variation is actually
just something such as different breeds of cats
or dogs illustrate.

Dog and cat breeds are due to mutation and genetic variation coupled
to selection (by humans rather than the environment in these cases).
The bulldog, for example, has a mutation in the same gene that, when
mutated, causes acromegalic dwarfism in humans. In some other
'breeds' other known mutation are the cause of the breed. In the wild
environment, most of these mutations would be deleterious, but these
'mutants' are selected by humans for their own reasons, not for the
good of the 'cat' or 'dog'.

I think what the world sees as
being a mutation is a mule, which cannot
reproduce.

A mule is a hybrid (not a mutant) between two equid (horse) species.
The infertility of the mule is *almost*, but not quite, complete,
meaning that the two parent species (mare and jackass -- the reverse
mating produces hinneys) are almost, but not quite, reproductively
isolated populations (the biological species concept). A few mules
have bred successfully, thus transmitting genetic information between
the two species. IOW, this is an example where 'species' concepts are
a bit 'fuzzy', as would be expected if speciation were a process
rather than an event. There are other examples of such partial
'speciation', most notably in plants, with much variation in the
'infertility' of the hybrid.

But what you are calling a mutation
is something that can reproduce. Isn't this correct?

Of course. A mutation is any permanent change in a genome sequence.
There is nothing that prevents organisms with mutations from
reproducing. Since you and I have dozens of new mutational changes in
our genomes (most, fortunately, being selectively neutral and in
sequences where the sequence doesn't matter) and even a few mutations
that would be deleterious if they were expressed, if we humans could
not reproduce with a certain level of mutational load, our species
would be toast, extinct, dead. Because we are diploid organisms (one
set of chromosomes from mommy, one from daddy) and most deleterious
mutations are recessive, we only show the mutant phenotype
(appearance) if both copies are mutant.

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... definitions of "evolution." ... evolution within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... So where is the testable falsifiable hypothesis for how evolution ... so why hasn't our species been extinguished by random ... they depends on the environment plus all the other erstwhile mutation. ... You speak of "miscopying" as the source of variation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... evolution occurs when a species ... It does this by reducing variation. ... > Selection is a brake, a mechanism to reduce variation, to weed out ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What do Dawkins, Ham and Dembski have in common?
    ... exist below species level. ... variation after the flood, but this is not what we see in nature. ... "fact of evolution" is rendered to be an inference that begs the ... It's the very reason why all Atheists are Darwinists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What do Dawkins, Ham and Dembski have in common?
    ... I accept Mayr's "biological species concept" to ... variation after the flood, but this is not what we see in nature. ... "fact of evolution" is rendered to be an inference that begs the ... How does species immutability deny variation? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading