Researchers Trace Evolution To Relatively Simple Genetic Changes

[wit>trope]

There is a fundamental mathematical problem with the theory of evolution. It's fine mathematically speaking to suppose that changes occurred that are the results of one or even a few bits of the genetic code mutating. But one or a few bits of genetic code mutating cannot make a lizard grow wings and fly. So while changes like much stronger armor or the loss of armor or much longer necks can theoretically occur through evolution. Changes like say a dog mutating to grow wings and fly are just statistically impossible -- even after a google generations or a google number of years. You can't suppose that mutations piled together to form the wings that made certain animals able to fly because the first in this long series of mutations wouldn't be favored by natural selection in the first place -- i.e. having 1 millionth (or 1 thousandth or whatever figure) of the genetic progression towards a wing would not be favored by natural selection; if anything it would be disfavored by natural selection.

 

[Gothmog]

cierdan, what can I say. Your argument doesn't make any sense. Why you use terms like 'mathematically' and 'statistically' is beyond me, there are no mathematics or statistics contained in your argument.

If there is a selective pressure towards lizards (more likely dinosaurs) growing wing-like appendages without the need for them to actually fly, then the path is clear.

Dogs have not mutated to grow wings, but squirrels have...

I actually came into this thread to report another amazing single gene mutation and associated phenotypic change.

Scientists have discovered it is surprisingly easy to reverse sex roles in fruit flies. By changing just one gene, they can make a female perform the courtship ritual of the male.

She'll sing, vibrate her wings and lick a potential female suitor. But it's all for naught, as nature doesn't let the flip-flopped sexual advances proceed to any productive conclusion.
...

The study has no immediate implications for human sexuality, Dickson told LiveScience. But it does figure into on an ongoing debate about whether a single gene can profoundly affect behavior or if behavior is too complex to be reduced to the influence of any one gene.

Dickson said a fly's flight gene, if one exists, obviously can't be used to make a mouse fly. But the new discovery and other studies suggest that single genes can influence hundreds of other genes, even triggering the development of complex things like eyes or limbs.

The research is detailed in this week's issue of the journal Cell.

 

[wit>trope]

If there is a selective pressure towards lizards (more likely dinosaurs) growing wing-like appendages without the need for them to actually fly, then the path is clear.

The problem is that there ISN'T! 1 thousandth (or 1 millionth or whatever figure) of the genetic progression towards a wing is not favored by natural selection. It's completely useless. One round of mutations wouldn't produce a wing-like appendage anyway but even assuming that it did, what use would it have natural-selection wise? It wouldn't help you fly. You can't fly with something that doesn't function at all as a wing. If anything it'd be selected AGAINST because of the unnecessary added weight. I think some people have this idea that natural selection has some mystical character to it that guides it to certain long term goals. But the mechanism by which natural selection functions is purely from generation to generation. Long term effects do result. But this kind of long term effect just can't result from it.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Dogs have not mutated to grow wings, but squirrels have...

Wings!? The flap of skin on a flying squirrel hardly counts as wings.

 

[punkbass2000]

The problem is that there' ISN'T! 1 thousandth (or 1 millionth or whatever figure) of the genetic progression towards a wing is not favored by natural selection. It's completely useless. If anything it would be disfavored by natural selection slightly because of the useless extra weight it may cause or some other such thing.

Any evidence for this claim?

 

[wit>trope]

Any evidence for this claim?

Just use your head!

Let's suppose you had something that was 1 thousandth of the constitution of a functioning wing. Well what good does it do? Unless it actually functions, it won't do you any good and will just be extra weight which natural selection will actually select against.

 

[punkbass2000]

So "no", then?

 

[MeteorPunch]

So "no", then?

I think he was saying that the natural selection would actually work against itself in the situation mentioned. So, natural selection itself is the "evidence."

 

[Renata]

Problem is, all his argument boils down to is, "I can't figure out how it happened; therefore, it didn't happen." Not much of an argument, and doesn't address the evidence *for* evolution in the slightest.

Renata

 

[wit>trope]

Problem is, all his argument boils down to is, "I can't figure out how it happened; therefore, it didn't happen."

No it doesn't. It boils down to some basic mathematics. There is no plausible account ANYWHERE in the literature that I have read which shows how a single round of mutations constituting a genetic progression towards functioning wings is favored by natural selection. All the evidence would seem to indicate that if anything it would be DISfavored by natural selection. Thus the probability that each out of thousands or millions of rounds of mutations would occur necessary for the development of functiong wings can be calculated to be AT LEAST as low as the result when calculating the probabilty of each round independently and multiplying them (in reality the probability will be lower). The resulting probability is astronomically low. Even after a google generations (for those of you who don't know google is actually a defined number), it's statistically impossible for it to happen.

Not much of an argument, and doesn't address the evidence *for* evolution in the slightest.

There is no evidence whatsoever that these kinds of changes are the result of natural selection. There is evidence that certain other kinds of changes are the result of natural selection. But arguing that that evidence constitutes evidence for a larger theory that includes claims about things for which there is no evidence is very poor logic. It would be like saying evidence for the existence of gravity constitutes evidence for the existence of dark energy. The fact that there is a larger theory that supposes that both gravity and dark energy exists doesn't mean that evidence for one constitutes evidence for the other.

 

[punkbass2000]

I think he was saying that the natural selection would actually work against itself in the situation mentioned. So, natural selection itself is the "evidence."

I understand that he's saying that. He just has nothing to back it up. Judging from his next post, it's because there's nothing that he considers plausible to support these changes. I'm not inclined to just take his word for it.

 

[wit>trope]

I think he was saying that the natural selection would actually work against itself in the situation mentioned. So, natural selection itself is the "evidence."

That's right. And without natural selection working for it -- indeed with it to some extent working against it -- you get probabilities that are almost infinitesimal that the string of mutations would occur. Probabilities so low that it's not likely to happen even after a google years (a google is an actual number).

 

[wit>trope]

I understand that he's saying that. He just has nothing to back it up. Judging from his next post, it's because there's nothing that he considers plausible to support these changes. I'm not inclined to just take his word for it.

Don't take my word for it. Read and see if YOU can find a plausible account. Don't just accept what society tells you is true. Be an independent thinker! As I said, use your head! But if you just use COMMON SENSE you'll realize that having 1 thousandth of the constitution of a functiniong wing is ABSOLUTELY USELESS. Imagine if you had 1 thousandth of a functioning wing right now. What could you do with it? It won't let you fly one bit. I get the feeling that you don't know what NATURAL SELECTION is. Read about it my friend

 

[HighlandWarrior]

So, he said, "the marine fish actually carry the genes for this alternative state, but at such a low level it is never seen;" all the ocean fish remain well-armored. "But they do have this silent gene that allows this alternative form to emerge if the fish colonize a new freshwater location."

im pretty sure the reason all the ocean fish are well armored is because the ones born without probably die very young and quickly.

i also imagine that the ones without scales give birth to ones with lots of armor, but those also die young and quickly.

if the ocean fish moved to the rivers of virginia i'd make a guess the ones born without the scales would survive and the ones with them would die.

i don't see how this has anything to do with macro evolution.

 

[Shaihulud]

Imagine if you had 1 thousandth of a functioning wing right now. What could you do with it? It won't let you fly one bit.

I disagree with that, the vstigial wing at that time was not used for flying, maybe for aerobraking? To decrease drag when running? Or in an aboreal animal as a source of control when jumping from tree to tree? in time the function of the vestigial wings increase and evolution begins to more strongly favour it.

 

[carlosMM]

There is a fundamental mathematical problem with the theory of evolution. It's fine mathematically speaking to suppose that changes occurred that are the results of one or even a few bits of the genetic code mutating. But one or a few bits of genetic code mutating cannot make a lizard grow wings and fly. So while changes like much stronger armor or the loss of armor or much longer necks can theoretically occur through evolution. Changes like say a dog mutating to grow wings and fly are just statistically impossible -- even after a google generations or a google number of years. You can't suppose that mutations piled together to form the wings that made certain animals able to fly because the first in this long series of mutations wouldn't be favored by natural selection in the first place -- i.e. having 1 millionth (or 1 thousandth or whatever figure) of the genetic progression towards a wing would not be favored by natural selection; if anything it would be disfavored by natural selection.

cierdan, I have repeatedly explained this on CFC.
Basically, the 1 thousands of a wing is useless for flight - but how do you know it is useless overall? (hint: it isn't, it has a DIFFERENT use).

 

[carlosMM]

Don't take my word for it. Read and see if YOU can find a plausible account. Don't just accept what society tells you is true. Be an independent thinker! As I said, use your head! But if you just use COMMON SENSE you'll realize that having 1 thousandth of the constitution of a functiniong wing is ABSOLUTELY USELESS. Imagine if you had 1 thousandth of a functioning wing right now. What could you do with it? It won't let you fly one bit. I get the feeling that you don't know what NATURAL SELECTION is. Read about it my friend

See, your common sense doesn't reach far enough! YOU do not know what Natural Selection is, thus you assume those who have studied it do not know. Interesting conclusion!


btw, aren't you somewhat surprised how easily I can make a plausible explanation for what you think impossible?
Should make you think about your other assupmtions about ToE, too!

 

[carlosMM]

I disagree with that, the vstigial wing at that time was not used for flying, maybe for aerobraking? To decrease drag when running? Or in an aboreal animal as a source of control when jumping from tree to tree? in time the function of the vestigial wings increase and evolution begins to more strongly favour it.

Actually, in birds the wings developed at first as increased cover for the body and for eggs. Then were used to increase drag (press bird against substrate --Y enables running up inclines). Then, larger now, they made good airbrakes and gliding surfaces and flapping gave enough lift to increase gliding distance.

So simple - if you can see and think.

 

[VoodooAce]

creationist view: It's easy to understand how a gene mutation can result in a minor change in a species, but how does this explain one species becoming another? Are there any examples of that?

Give them time. You'd better start working on your rebuttal for that now.

You know what is an interesting form of evolution?

The way religion has evolved their arguments for creationism to fit scientific disoveries over the last 600 years. Guys were villified, executed, for questioning the Ptolemeic system, but you evolved when proven wrong. And you've kept on evolving. Interesting.

 

[Smidlee]

"So, this is one of the first cases in vertebrates where it's been possible to track down the genetic mechanism that controls a dramatic change in skeletal pattern, a change that occurs naturally in the wild," he noted.

Everyone is a evolutionist even the creationist. Noone denials AFAIK that natural selection is a factor in nature. Even Christians from the beginning agree with Darwin on this issue as they saw the different varities of a species. The different is evolutionist believe their little theory explains and created everything while those of ID see it's limits.


While this is interesting they found the switch that turn on and off these plates doesn't say nothing how did this switch evolved the start with. While It easy to see that when I flip a switch on the wall a light on the ceilling turn on and off yet this is because hidden behind the walls an intelligent being wired the switch and the light so this would happen on purpose and not by accident. There's even games that you can use the notepad to turn on/off switch in the game.( Some changes in a game (often patches)will not be compatible with the old save or playing online with a different version yet this doesn't mean these two different version is two completely different games. They both are the same game just that the changes are not compatible. same with the species of animals.)
I'm sure as time passes they will find more switches in the genetic code yet if only they can find the ape-man switch. Where could that switch be?