What exactly is "Natural Selection"?

[ironduck]

Here's a flying pig for Bozo

(copyright Liza Myers - http://www.lizamyers.com/)

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Youre on my Christmas list!

 

[El_Machinae]

Get a million pigs. Make them jump out of airplanes without parachutes. When youve got two pigs that can fly, youve got natural selection.

With modern techniques, we can really speed this process.

We zap pregnant pigs with x-rays and bring the piglets to adolescence.
THEN we shove them out of a plane.
If only one can fly, we clone it.

See, we can vastly speed the whole 'evolutionary' process with technology.

 

[Sophie 378]

It's a myth that it's a myth. :shakehead Mutations do not add information in increasing complexity, all it can do is alter existing information or take away existing information. Prove otherwise.

I already have. So have several others. Kindly provide a link to a scientific journal or textbook showing that mutations only remove information. You are saying one thing; several people have provided information that shows another; please show us some proof for your argument.

A very simple example (again): gene duplication. It is a mutation. It adds information.

 

[El_Machinae]

As well, taking away unneeded information (via mutation) reduces the biological cost on the organism. The leads to a speedier and cheaper growth. That, in itself, is a good thing.

Early savings lead to long-term wealth, right? Well, it's even true at a cellular level.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

oh..but you didnt say "draw" your own coclusion you said something like: "read what the big guys think about it" so if my own conclusion its that it dosnt explain origins Im wrong rigth? so its basically wrong to follow the bible because you ahve to follow teh FACTS and what are the FACTS? what the big guys tell you are the FACTS and how you should look at them rigth?
.
.
.

How funny how one can contradict itself in a mere 2 min break:
.
.
.
So instead of saying why its an obvius consecuence you just rely that the "big guys" think its an obvius concecuence therefore any other person that thinks differently is inherently wrong...dosnt that sounds you as DOGMA??

I stated earlier in my posts I am educated in this field and I accept evolution, I obviously included myself in the statement. Further I quoted a scientific book I recommend you to read and make up your mind as I did during my education. You debunk evolution with no education in the field whatsoever. That mutation can not add new information was stated by creationists and several possibilities how it can add information were stated and not falsified by the creationists.

Isolated groups of one species (the blind subspecies will also stop to produce pigments and won´t be able to survive in the other habitat) will drift genetically to the point where they can not interbreed any more. Why? Because the perception of egg and sperm is a complicated biochemical process, involved proteins must match that the cells can merge. Genetical drift also influences them to the point where perception is no longer possible. Genetical material can no longer be exchanged between these groups you have now two species.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Natural selection is NOT evolution, it is a PART of evolution.

Technically correct.

(by the way, evolution is supposed to be random mutations, right? So there can't be any environmental pressure, can there?).

This is a rather idiotic statement from someone who just said natural selection is part of evolution.

Evolution requires random mutations to add information in increasing complexity to DNA, not altering existing DNA or take away information.

This doesn't mean anything, and won't till you deign to tell us exactly what you mean by "information" and "complexity" in this context.

BTW, I don't think you're just incompetent at expressing your views - I think your being deliberately vague, hoping to impress people with big words without saying anything that's outright wrong. The vacuity in this sort of claims have been spelt out a few times too many to make any other conclusion seem likely. Dishonest cretin.

Natural selection takes away information, speciailizing creatures to specific environments.

Same.

So for example, there was probably one pair of bears on Noah's Ark. They had a rich gene pool, so to speak.

Unless you're gonna invoke God tinkering with their gametes, they couldn't have had more than four alleles of anything, which doesn't make for a rich gene pool.

So a bear with fur better suited to the cold passes on more of its genes and those less suited the cold pass on fewer. In the end, you have polar bears. Polar bears have LESS information than the Noahic bears, because they aren't all of the sudden going to give birth to a panda or a grizzlie.

But bears in Noah's day did? Reference?

(You do realize that pandas are much further from polar bears than chimps are from humans, do you?)

Just like I won't have a red-haired kid, I've lost the red hair gene in my DNA

There's no such thing as "the red hair gene".

(humans aren't really subject to natural selection, various races and ethnicities arose because of the confusion of languages at Babel and groups marrying only amongst themselves).

I'd love to hear how confusion of language changes skin pigmentation and blood groups.

As for humans not being subject to natural subjection, do your homework and come back again.

If my kids don't marry anybody with red hair in their gene pool, then my grandkids won't have red hair. If cousins marry, no more red hair. It is obvious how it works, but no mutation is all of the sudden going to give my kid a brand new hair color or bring back old lost genes.

Unlikely, but it could happen.

Mutations do not add information, they alter existing information or take it away.

See above.

So a flying beetle might get its existing information altered and get more wings, or take away the wing code. There won't be a mutation giving it fins. End of story.

There won't be a mutation giving it fins, because a complex organ like a fin needs modifications to a great many genes to evolve. Oh, and of course, there's hard to imagine a reason why beetles with fin-like extremities would get preferentially selected.

Why is it that you creationist can't seem to get your heads around the concept of gradual change? Denial?


Phew. Now, would you kindly stop brandishing big words and engage in actual debate?

 

[The Last Conformist]

As well, taking away unneeded information (via mutation) reduces the biological cost on the organism. The leads to a speedier and cheaper growth. That, in itself, is a good thing.

Assuming you by information here mean simply genetic code, it's a good thing, but not enough of a good thing to prevent the genomes of most organisms to be stuffed with junk.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's just because a) redundancy works! and b) 'junk' DNA is becoming less junkish every time I read a study. Anyway, I was refering to mitochondrial DNA, but I assume we can extrapolate upwards.

As well, breeding out (actual) junk DNA takes just as long as breeding in a good mutation. Evolution is a slow process.

 

[The Last Conformist]

That's just because a) redundancy works! and b) 'junk' DNA is becoming less junkish every time I read a study. Anyway, I was refering to mitochondrial DNA, but I assume we can extrapolate upwards.

True junk DNA is the non-preserved part. That various other non-coding bits have been found to have function doesn't mean that the non-perserved bits aren't junk.

As well, breeding out (actual) junk DNA takes just as long as breeding in a good mutation. Evolution is a slow process.

Nope. For most creatures, the pressure to get rid of junk DNA is minimal (exceptions include parasites in need to shrink and things like Pelagobacter ubique that absolutely minimize their metabolic needs), but a any noticeably good mutation has significant selection pressure going for it.

 

[Zany]

There won't be a mutation giving it fins, because a complex organ like a fin needs modifications to a great many genes to evolve. Oh, and of course, there's hard to imagine a reason why beetles with fin-like extremities would get preferentially selected.

Why is it that you creationist can't seem to get your heads around the concept of gradual change? Denial?


Phew. Now, would you kindly stop brandishing big words and engage in actual debate?

My points (about the evolution of fins) exactly! It was just an example, since no bugs I've seen have fins. It requires many, many, many mutations (apparently all random, but you don't see many crazy-looking half-evolved fossils, considering there should be billions of "failed" species like that) to make something fully functioning. If this thing in question, a vein for instance (various tubes, such as veins or intestines, need to be 100% complete and functioning or else they are useless, and thereby, must be planned out and also how does natural selection favor unecessary traits that will a long time in the future become necessary?), is not fully evolved it is useless. So if something is needed, the need for it will kill the creature before it can face up to this environmental pressure.

Denial about gradual change? No, we understand gradual change fully. However, there are no signs of gradual change. There are no fossils of (for EXAMPLE, don't run with this ) a dinosaur with scales slowing evolving into feathers (and again, why would natural selection favor unecessary traits?). There are fossils of the archaeopteryx, but that's an example of a link between missing chains. Not a complete chain with a missing link, a link with chains in both directions completely missing.

Sorry if I came off as using big words intentionally, I did not intend so. I hate when people do that to sound smart. And I think there is a debate going on here, no need to ask for it to start, good sir.

There's no such thing as "the red hair gene".

Ever hear of an example? They usually aren't perfectly applied to the situation, they are figurative.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmmmn, I see a lot of 'evolution' occurring in a slightly different time-frame. I think that sometimes what happens is a 'survivable' mutation that's passed down through generations, and would be excised as 'junk' eventually. However, something happens to the environment (which could include migrating to a new environment) that shows the 'survivable' mutation to be desirable, and thus is selected.

For example, skin pigment colors don't matter to creatures that live in the dark (some bugs, etc.) and there's not much burden due to a mutation which changes the color of the skin. However, if the bugs migrate to where there is light, suddenly there's evolutionary advantage.

Summing up, I don't think that (often) the evolution occurs in time of crisis, but happened well before hand.

 

[The Last Conformist]

My points (about the evolution of fins) exactly! It was just an example, since no bugs I've seen have fins. It requires many, many, many mutations (apparently all random, but you don't see many crazy-looking half-evolved fossils, considering there should be billions of "failed" species like that) to make something fully functioning.

Failed species? Sir, I cannot quite tell if you're erecting strawmen or are just entirely clueless.

If this thing in question, a vein for instance (various tubes, such as veins or intestines, need to be 100% complete and functioning or else they are useless, and thereby, must be planned out and also how does natural selection favor unecessary traits that will a long time in the future become necessary?), is not fully evolved it is useless.

This is false, as evidenced by the various critters without complete intestines and the like.

So if something is needed, the need for it will kill the creature before it can face up to this environmental pressure.

If you by needed mean necessary for survival, systems start out as optional and gradually become necessary.

Denial about gradual change? No, we understand gradual change fully.

If so, you're doing a good job of hiding it.

However, there are no signs of gradual change. There are no fossils of (for EXAMPLE, don't run with this ) a dinosaur with scales slowing evolving into feathers (and again, why would natural selection favor unecessary traits?).

Actually, there is a protobird found with a sort of protofeathers. Not an ancestor of Archy - it's too late - but probably a good model for the covering of Archy's ancestors.

There are fossils of the archaeopteryx, but that's an example of a link between missing chains. Not a complete chain with a missing link, a link with chains in both directions completely missing.

There's plenty of links before and after Archy, I'm afraid.

Sorry if I came off as using big words intentionally, I did not intend so. I hate when people do that to sound smart.

I'm not accusing you of trying to sound smart, I'm accusing you of using big words to camouflage the fact that you are making claims too vague to evaluate.

And I think there is a debate going on here, no need to ask for it to start, good sir.

We're not having a debate. You're spouting nonsense, and I'm calling you on it.


Anyway, I'm off to bed. Good night.

 

[Perfection]

My points (about the evolution of fins) exactly! It was just an example, since no bugs I've seen have fins. It requires many, many, many mutations (apparently all random, but you don't see many crazy-looking half-evolved fossils, considering there should be billions of "failed" species like that) to make something fully functioning. If this thing in question, a vein for instance (various tubes, such as veins or intestines, need to be 100% complete and functioning or else they are useless, and thereby, must be planned out and also how does natural selection favor unecessary traits that will a long time in the future become necessary?), is not fully evolved it is useless. So if something is needed, the need for it will kill the creature before it can face up to this environmental pressure.

Well, the fact is that partially functioning units can be useful.

Here's a good illustrative video!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Denial about gradual change? No, we understand gradual change fully. However, there are no signs of gradual change. There are no fossils of (for EXAMPLE, don't run with this ) a dinosaur with scales slowing evolving into feathers (and again, why would natural selection favor unecessary traits?). There are fossils of the archaeopteryx, but that's an example of a link between missing chains. Not a complete chain with a missing link, a link with chains in both directions completely missing.

Talk Origins to your face.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#syn2mamm

For the main article, scroll to question six.

And ignoring that for the moment, let me ask you two questions about your standards.
1) If evolution were true, how many fossil (type)s would you EXPECT there to be, and why?
2) How many fossil (type)s are needed for you to begin accepting the evidence?

 

[sanabas]

Natural selection is NOT evolution, it is a PART of evolution. Seeing natural selection in action is NOT seeing evolution in action. N.S. is seeing a polar bear dying in the jungle and not having any offspring, the polar bear isn't evolving away its coat (by the way, evolution is supposed to be random mutations, right? So there can't be any environmental pressure, can there?). Evolution requires random mutations to add information in increasing complexity to DNA, not altering existing DNA or take away information.

along with TLC and others, I can't tell if you have some sort of understanding of all the theories you're arguing against, and are being intentionally vague to hide the lack of any logic in your arguments, or if you truly have no understanding of this stuff, and you're just parroting your preferred sources of info who also use this tactic, or possibly some other option.

I want to do teaching eventually, I currently do tutoring of maths and various science subjects, so this is good practice for trying to get a basic concept into one of my less able students. So I'll try again to explain some of this to you.


If you'd oblige, I'd like to hear your definition of what you think 'natural selection' means, and how it's supposed to work. Not whether you think it's right or not, not what other stuff you think works better, not what the theory results in that you find unbelievable like half formed fins, but a simple explanation of what natural selection means as applied to most of the discussion in this thread. A proper understanding of what the theory you're trying to shoot down actually says will make it much easier to shoot down.

by the way, evolution is supposed to be random mutations, right? So there can't be any environmental pressure, can there?

From this quote, it seems to me that what you think the theory says happens is that an organism feels environmental pressure, or doesn't quite fit into its environment as well as it could, and so in response to that, it experiences mutations to make it better or refine it. Therefore the mutations can't be random. Which allows you to argue against it based on personal incredulity via intentionally or accidentally misunderstanding what actually happens. To couch it in very oversimplified terms, evolution/selection is not random mutations, it is cumulative selection applied to those random mutations. Take the parents, have some offspring, mutations will introduce slight variance between those offspring, and if one of those variations is slightly better at resulting in more offspring (due to environmental pressure), that variation will propagate more. Repeat multiple times, and you can get large changes over generations.

Drop a population of polar bears somewhere in north america, and remove the bears that are already in that location occupying a similar niche, get to watch for lots of generations, and you can watch the polar bears 'evolve away their coats' yourself. You can find plenty of examples of things similar to this if you want to go looking. i.e. cichlid? fish in lake victoria.

Evolution requires random mutations to add information in increasing complexity to DNA, not altering existing DNA or take away information

As per others, this is a very vague statement without knowing what you mean by info & complexity. Follow some of the links given in this thread for actual examples though.

 

[Urederra]

i haven't read much of the thread, but, after reading the flying pigs thingy, I have to post this pic and the subsequent url link.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/1643/glowmice.html
http://www.forbes.com/sciencesandme...ne-therapies-cx_mh_0912genes.html?partner=rss

 

[Sophie 378]

Long live GFP! I want a fluorescent hamster for xmas .... or failing that, at least some luciferin.

 

[carlosMM]

back to da roots

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp

Is this what Evolution is about? Natural selction seems to be a losing of genetic material rather than gaing of infomation.

classical_hero, youa re taking ONE single example of a genetic change, ignore possible benefits of the change, then extrapolate that a process that has does NOT influence this directly has a direct result, and this ONE result only?


Please!


Let's clear up the errors in your assumptions first:

Natural Selection does not influence a genome directly.
It only influences the genome of a species by determining what offsrpings survive and what do not. As all offsprings differ slightly from their parents (via recombination), the relative abundance of a gene in the population can change by this. Also, offsprings may differ slightly to significantly from their parents via mutation. This fact ALONE changes the gene pool of the species. If the offspring dies without own offsrpings, then the mutation is of no consequence and the gene pool reverts to the previous composition. If not, the the change is permanent.

THIS IS WHAT EVOLUTION IS ABOUT!


Now, as for 'losing' information:

What information was 'lost'? As far as I can see, possible NO information was lost! We ahve to distinguish two possiblities at least:
1) the genes for the proper development of eyes are lost
2) the genes controlling whether the genes for proper development of the eyes were set to 'incative'.

As you can see, in 2) no information is lost, it is only not expressed.


Also, 'blind' eyes are not a 'loss' of information - just a change! 'White' skin isn't a loss, either, just a change from more pigmented 'brown' or 'black' skin. it is our perception that calls it a 'loss'.

Admittedly, usually the posession of working eyes is an advantage, but is it for the species in question here? (hint: no!)

Now for the easy solution: expressing genes takes energy. And any organ can be a potential attack point for germs, uses energy, takes up neural capacity. If you want to know how blind (or no) eyes is possibly and advantage, check whether the loss of sight gives an advantage - energy savings being one that comes to mind first.
We lack the information necessary to say if there is an advantage beyond possibly having to copy fewer genes atm. Go check!

And, last of all: Loss if organs that have lost their function can take time. Do you have a long tail? No. Man has lost the tail OVER TIME. And the shrimps will either lose the eyes altogether (what they have left is still complex, and complexity means development may go wrong, after all), or they will develop them into something else usefull. You still have an appendix (unless it was operated out, but it is in your genome, and it is expressed!). Why?

 

[classical_hero]

People already gave an example - Hox gene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
http://www.homeobox.cjb.net/

So now deformities prove evolution. I always thought the opposite was true. Often Hox genes are considered serious that often miscarriage occurs and the process of natural selection removes this gene from the gene pool because it is considered dangerous.

A particular subgroup of homeobox genes are the Hox genes, which are found in a special gene cluster, the Hox cluster (also called Hox complex). Hox genes function in patterning the body axis. Thus, by providing the identity of particular body regions, Hox genes determine where limbs and other body segments will grow in a developing fetus or larva. Mutations in any one of these genes can lead to the growth of extra, typically non-functional body parts in invertebrates, for example aristapaedia complex in Drosophila, which results in a leg growing from the head in place of an antenna and is due to a defect in a single gene (this mutation is also known as Antennapedia). Mutation in vertebrate Hox genes usually results in spontaneous abortion.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that a defect gene is evolution. This goes in the face of evolutionary thought that mutations cause additional genetic material to go to the species. Hox gene mutation in vertietrates, will result in the loss of life of the individual even before the chance of getting out of the womb. This is what natural selection is about, this is getting rid of those who are not fit to survive and that Hox gene mutation is removed from the gene pool, not added to it. So that means it is impossible for us or most mammals to every have Hox mutation without suffering serious consequences. Again this goes again traditional evolution and support Creation. Basically this means that it is impossible for man to have evolved from Hox mutation.