quote:Originally posted by Feer: Evolution comes from mutation. The fish that has a mutated fin alowing it to go faster through that water, a human having an extra finger to type fast on a computer and get a better job, so he doesnt die off and he can pass his extra finger gene mutation
That's sort of the gist of it. It would help if you were to add in an account of unhelpful mutations as well, since the mutations themselves are random.
It is only within context that they become helpful or unhelpful, and if you change the context, you may well change the helpfulness (or hinderance).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
a mutation of a fish so it cant swim faster, would ultimatly lead to the death of that fish and the bad mutated gene.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not true. New mutations come from mutation (heh. How's that for a useless tautology), but that only becomes evolution if that new mutation is passed down and helps the descendants survive.
A good example of evolution without mutation is the peppered moth. They come in two colors; light and dark. 200 years ago, the light colored ones were far more common, because those who were dark tended to get eaten quicker and didn't pass on their genes as much.
As pollution from the industrial revolution in England got worse, and things started getting covered with soot, the white ones started getting eaten sooner, and there was a shift in the genetics of the moth. Many more were dark, with the light ones in the minority.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, no. At least, I don't think so. But I don't really understand what you said.
Mutations can cause new genotypes to appear in the population. That's not necessarily evolution, but it could cause it to happen if those genotypes confer some sort of benefit.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I don't see a conflict between a figurative interpretation of the Christian Bible and the scientific theory of evolution. I do see a conflict between a literal interpretation of the CB and the theory, but I am neither a believer myself nor a literalist, so it doesn't cause me any consternation myself.
quote:Originally posted by Feer: May I hear the conflict none the less?
Well, first off, tell me about your understanding of how Genesis describes the origin of the world. Which of the two stories of origination do you reference, and why that one -- or, if both, where do you think there might be a conflict between the two?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolution comes from mutation. The fish that has a mutated fin alowing it to go faster through that water, a human having an extra finger to type fast on a computer and get a better job, so he doesnt die off and he can pass his extra finger gene mutation
That's the start of it. As CT said, though (and Scott alluded to), mutations that do not offer an advantage aren't evolution. It's only when the mutation offers enough of an advantage to give the creature with the mutation an edge over the creature without it that it becomes evolution.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Thats about what I was saying. That withou Mutations evolution wouldnt happen.
Like I said earlier, I disagree.
Did you read the page I liked to about the peppered moth? That was clear example of evolution happening without any mutation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "^^ now c.t.t.n could have been masking her homework phishing attempt with a poll, but who can know these things?"
c.t.t.n. is my alt. Last I checked, I'm male.
I usually go with "he" when I am unsure, and this time I went with my instinct, apologies for guessing wrong. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Feer: I see it as god made the earth, and made animals to evolve. is that what you asked claudia?
Ah. There are two different Genesis stories, and they differ in some (possibly) important ways. Would you like a link to read about them?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are talking about the King james and the Jerusalem Bible i have read them. but if you arn't then I would like the link.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she means that in the book of Genesis, there are two different creation stories (or parts of two stories) sort of smushed together. And they don't entirely match up.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. *removes sarcastic asshat cap*
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Evolution comes from mutation. The fish that has a mutated fin alowing it to go faster through that water, a human having an extra finger to type fast on a computer and get a better job, so he doesnt die off and he can pass his extra finger gene mutation
That's the start of it. As CT said, though (and Scott alluded to), mutations that do not offer an advantage aren't evolution. It's only when the mutation offers enough of an advantage to give the creature with the mutation an edge over the creature without it that it becomes evolution.
Not exactly. I would argue that both genetic drift and harmful mutations are an example of evolution (or, to be more precise, natural selection) in action. In both cases, you have change in genotype, and certainly in the latter case you have a change in phenotype as well. Genetic drift itself can lead to phenotypic variation, although if the variation is more or less neutral in terms of survival and fecundity, natural selection obviously won't push it one way or the other. Regardless, all of this comes out of the process of evolution through the mechanism of natural selection.
quote:Originally posted by mph:
quote:
Like I said earlier, I disagree.
Did you read the page I liked to about the peppered moth? That was clear example of evolution happening without any mutation.
Not quite- the two peppered moth phenotypes are themselves the result of mutations that occurred in the distant past. The prevalence of the white phenotype prior to the Industrial Revolution was itself the result of natural selection; the change in the ratio of black-to-white phenotypes afterwards is another.
As for whether evolution can result in speciation, as usual, the most concise response is a link to talk.origins' "Observed Instances of Speciation" page, which lists a number of cases in which speciation occurred, and provides the appropriate citations to the scientific literature.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Was it not mutation that the peppered moth was a darker color?
No. Did you even bother to read my link?
Before the industrial revolution, there were already light and dark moths. The evolution was that before, the dark moths were very rare, like albinoism is very rare in most animals. After the change in their environment, about 90% of them were dark moths.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Feer: If you are talking about the King james and the Jerusalem Bible i have read them. but if you arn't then I would like the link.
No, not the difference between the Catholic translation of the Christian Bible and the KJ version. Many consider there to be two separate accounts of creation in Genesis, a.k.a. the "Priestly" and the "Jahwist" accounts: See here.
If you want to talk about how Genesis might be in contrast to evolution, it's good to make sure you know what each is first.
Also, does the distinction between "literal" and "figurative" interpretations make sense to you? If you aren't familiar with the terms, they would be worth looking up.
---
Edited to add: I'll step back for awhile while you work on evolution.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would argue that both genetic drift and harmful mutations are an example of evolution (or, to be more precise, natural selection) in action.
How are harmful mutations an example of natural selection? That seems counterintuitive (which doesn't mean it can't be true, I'm just asking for clarification).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did read the link i know the story. How do you get 2 moths of different colors? one had to have had a mutated gene that changed the color. and that gene was passed on.
so like Tarrsk later natural selection came along and played its part in evolution.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: ... It's only when the mutation offers enough of an advantage to give the creature with the mutation an edge over the creature without it that it becomes evolution.
As a helpful addendum, it is interesting to note that while most conceive of evolution as happening on the level of (populations of) individual organisms, this viewpoint is not unanimous. Some (including me) find it helpful to also view evolution as occurring on the level of (populations of) genes, when looking at "junk" DNA, transposons, and so forth.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Feer: If you are talking about the King james and the Jerusalem Bible i have read them. but if you arn't then I would like the link.
No, not the difference between the Catholic translation of the Christian Bible and the KJ version. Many consider there to be two separate accounts of creation in Genesis, a.k.a. the "Priestly" and the "Jahwist" accounts: See here.
If you want to talk about how Genesis might be in contrast to evolution, it's good to make sure you know what each is first.
Also, does the distinction between "literal" and "figurative" interpretations make sense to you? If you aren't familiar with the terms, they would be worth looking up.
---
Edited to add: I'll step back for awhile while you work on evolution.
I was basing it off of KJV, i hadnt even thought of those others.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you get 2 moths of different colors? one had to have had a mutated gene that changed the color.
Well, if you assume that all genetic variation is the result of random mutation, then of course the different colors of moth come from mutation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would argue that both genetic drift and harmful mutations are an example of evolution (or, to be more precise, natural selection) in action.
How are harmful mutations an example of natural selection? That seems counterintuitive (which doesn't mean it can't be true, I'm just asking for clarification).
Natural selection isn't just the elevation of populations with higher fitness- it's also the concurrent reduction in populations with *lower* fitness. Harmful mutations are one example of the latter. For example, a mutation in a fish that results in a slightly slower average swimming speed might not impair it enough to prevent it from breeding entirely, but could prove enough of a liability that it (and its progeny) are less reproductively successful than their normal-speed compatriots.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would argue that both genetic drift and harmful mutations are an example of evolution (or, to be more precise, natural selection) in action.
How are harmful mutations an example of natural selection? That seems counterintuitive (which doesn't mean it can't be true, I'm just asking for clarification).
Natural selection isn't just the elevation of populations with higher fitness- it's also the concurrent reduction in populations with *lower* fitness. Harmful mutations are one example of the latter. For example, a mutation in a fish that results in a slightly slower average swimming speed might not impair it enough to prevent it from breeding entirely, but could prove enough of a liability that it (and its progeny) are less reproductively successful than their normal-speed compatriots.
Okay. It's the less discussed side of natural selection, i.e. less heritable traits reproducing less successfully. Gotcha.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a discussion about Genesis vs. Origin of the species, you can't just assume that everybody already agrees on how and if evolution happens.
Even some of the most staunch anti-evolutionists can concede that evolution of the type we see in the peppered moth happens. We've seen it happen. It's almost impossible to refute.
But those same people are not necessarily convinced that random mutation could cause the complexity we see in the natural world. In fact, that's one of the big Intelligent Design arguments.
One reason why it's not as persuasive is that we haven't observed, as it happened, that all of the genetic variation that exists was caused by random mutation.
There are people who believe that God created the species, complete with genetic variation, within the last 10,000 years, and that they've slowly changed since then.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are people who believe that God created the species, complete with genetic variation, within the last 10,000 years, and that they've slowly changed since then.
I don't recall offhand if you're one of those people, Porter, but I wonder if you know how they explain the fossil record? If you're not in that group of people, you don't need to speculate on their behalf on my account -- I'm sure someone will come along to explain it. I just thought you might know.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't stand anywhere. At least not strongly.
I used to believe, as I said in the edit of my last post, that God created the species, and then let them run free and slightly evolve from there.
I'm not married to that idea anymore. As I said before, the earth certainly appears to be much older than Genesis would lead us to believe. I think it's probably an error to take that part of Genesis literally, but I'm not positive. Perhaps God purposely made the world to appear much older than it is, but I doubt it. Perhaps we're really misinterpreting the physical evidence, but I don't know enough about any of the fields to even make a WAG.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Perhaps God purposely made the world to appear much older than it is, but I doubt it.
Why not? IF the main reason we are down here is to be tested why not throw tricky questions to test faith?
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Why not? IF the main reason we are down here is to be tested why not throw tricky questions to test faith?
How does this test faith? (*curious about your answer, given that you've said you don't see a conflict)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't recall offhand if you're one of those people, Porter, but I wonder if you know how they explain the fossil record? If you're not in that group of people, you don't need to speculate on their behalf on my account -- I'm sure someone will come along to explain it. I just thought you might know.
One speculation is that the dating methods we have (such as carbon14) are completely wrong, and that those are all the remains of creatures who became extinct with the great flood.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Perhaps God purposely made the world to appear much older than it is, but I doubt it.
Why not? IF the main reason we are down here is to be tested why not throw tricky questions to test faith?
While I concede that this is possible, it doesn't really mesh well with my (admittedly very limited) understanding of God. That's why I doubt that explanation, but don't outright reject it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People everywhere take evolution over god. They're faith in god is gone. It lets people have a chance to choose god over something else. If there where no fossils then there would be less of a choice of what to believe in. thus making the test easier.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I really don't stand anywhere. At least not strongly.
I used to believe, as I said in the edit of my last post, that God created the species, and then let them run free and slightly evolve from there.
I'm not married to that idea anymore. As I said before, the earth certainly appears to be much older than Genesis would lead us to believe. I think it's probably an error to take that part of Genesis literally, but I'm not positive. Perhaps God purposely made the world to appear much older than it is, but I doubt it. Perhaps we're really misinterpreting the physical evidence, but I don't know enough about any of the fields to even make a WAG.
Sounds like we're in the same boat. I used to be one of the "microevolution but not macroevolution" types. It was actually a course in historical linguistics that made me change my mind (or opened my mind to the possibility, anyway).
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Feer: It lets people have a chance to choose god over something else.
So, if I understand you correctly, having some evidence (even if "faked" by God) that supports a non-God-centered origin of the world is important to facillitate free will. Moreover, that it is the facillitation of free will which leads to a test of faith. Yes?
(I'm not setting you up -- just trying to understand.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:People everywhere take evolution over god. They're faith in god is gone. It lets people have a chance to choose god over something else. If there where no fossils then there would be less of a choice of what to believe in.
First of all, I think that evolution vs. God is a false dichotomy -- there is no need to choose only one or the other.
Also, there were thousands of years of people on this earth who didn't even have a chance to choose evolution. Do you think that their faith suffered as a result?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
