Questions about Darwinism.

[atinymonkey]

That article was surrounded by catholic this and that' date=' and I know that micro/macro evolution has been a very big obstacle for supporters of darwin...but...

[/quote']

 

I don't think it was. Darwinists died out about 130 years ago.

[Hellbender]

That article was surrounded by catholic this and that, and I know that micro/macro evolution has been a very big obstacle for supporters of darwin...but...

Its really not though. Both have lots of evidence to support them. Creationists just like to point out that macro hasn't been directly observed. This is impossible, because by definition, macro takes a very long time. But there is still more than enough evidence to show that this happens.

[Kleptin]

I use the "lesser of two ignorances" argument. It annoys me that christians use detailed scientific explanations to hack away at evolution via the macroevolution arguement, but end up saying we should believe a theory that is 100 times more primitive and unbelieveable.

[Mokele]

Creationists just like to point out that macro hasn't been directly observed. This is impossible, because by definition, macro takes a very long time.

 

Actually, by the definition of "macroevolution" as "anything involving speciation and stuff at or above the species level", then yes, we have observed it, and it doesn't have to take a long time at all. For instance, plants, because of the tendency for errors in gametogenesis that produce polyploid offspring, speciate like crazy, and we've watched them do so. Two accidentally diploid gametes meeting (happens more than you'd think) can instantaneously produce a new species, in the form a tetraploid plant that can only produce infertile hybrids with the parent plant (though if it cannot self-fertilize or reproduce asexually, it's screwed).

 

Plus, well, the distinction is purely artificial anyway. All macroevolution is is microevolution that's "scored" differently ("teams" rather than every organism for itself) and left to run for longer. The veracity of one logically necessitates the veracity of the other.

 

Mokele

[Gnieus]

creation is bollocks

bashaf iz meshugge

באַשאַ ףזײַן משוגעןער

 

Shalom שלום Peace

 

In yiddish as my aramaeic is a bit patchy

 

But if you believe in the literary word as it was written down why don't you read it yourself .. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/320px-Estrangela.jpg

 

Then you can bible bash until the Messiah returns..

 

Or more here:

 

http://www.peshitta.org/

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

 

So in case you belong to this church you might have a point somewhere sometime, if not, let's face it you are not reading the original.. so have no point whatsoever..

http://www.peshitta.org/images/Peshitta.gif

Read creationists read

 

If you accept translation you accept change and lost your argument.

 

Good bye..

[gib65]

I just read the article. It seems to me that the biggest misconception the author has about evolution is that natural selection is the only mechanism driving evolution. These appearant leaps in phenotypes distinguishing one species from another can be easily explained by genetic mutation. Take, for example, a fin becoming a web over one generation, and then an eon later, becoming a paw. Although this would seem like a leap in evolution (which it is), the leap is not so big on a genetic level. Now I'm not sure what the genetic code for fins, webs, and paws are, but the idea would be that when the fin evolved into a web, the gene for the fin went through a mutation that might have changed only a few molecules in the DNA, but because the DNA acts as a code for the phenotype, even the slightest change can cause huge alterations in the phenotype.

 

PS - The article did mention genetic mutation in a few places, but the context was all wrong. It talked about breeding pigeons as a way of genetically mutating the species, which is completely wrong. That's just artificial selection. If you want to genetically mutate the species, you have to take pigeon sperm and egg into a laboratory, get into their chromosomes (however that's done), genetically engineer it, and then manually fertilize the eggs with the new genes, which is not the standard way of doing it.

[Hellbender]

I just read the article. It seems to me that the biggest misconception the author has about evolution is that natural selection is the only mechanism driving evolution.

Thats why they labeled it "Darwinism".

[Kleptin]

I thought they labeled it Darwinism because Charles Darwin came up with it, how silly of me XD

[swansont]

I thought they labeled it Darwinism because Charles Darwin came up with it, how silly of me XD

 

Evolution is much more than what Darwin proposed. The theory has had many additions over the years, not the least of which was the discovery of genetics. So Darwinism and Evolution are not synonymous.

[Kleptin]

Naw, I said that Darwin came up with Darwinism. Does that change anything?

[swansont]

Naw, I said that Darwin came up with Darwinism. Does that change anything?

 

Depends on who was meant by "they" in Thats why they labeled it "Darwinism".

[Kleptin]

The same people that called Darwin's followers "Darwinists"

[Skye]

Who are usually anti-Darwinists.

 

:|

[Kleptin]

So that's who "they" are. Well, DOES it change anything?

[Hellbender]

So that's who "they" are. Well, DOES it change anything?

I was pertaining to the "they" in the article, and that it was correct for them to label the early evolutionary theory that incorporates gradual natural selection "Darwinism", as this is what Darwin's original theory consisted of. Darwin didn't think of evolution, the fact that populations of organisms change over time was known; the mechanisms behind it were not, and Darwin happened to successfully test the first one. Darwinism is dead because we refined his original theory so much, and it is inaccurate to give only him credit for it anymore.

[Kleptin]

I understand

 

Ok, here's another question. Evolution has to occur by mutation, mutation has to occur in conjunction with errors in gene copying. Would the first incidence of mutation be a single genetic protein (the first life form?) screwing up while copying itself?

[-Demosthenes-]

I suppose, although evolution does not require mutaion per se. Macro-evolution where it involves speciation would need some sort of mutation, but micro hardly ever involves mutation.

[Skye]

mutation has to occur in conjunction with errors in gene copying

Mutation can be caused by radiation, heat, chemicals, etc too.

[Halucigenia]

I suppose, although evolution does not require mutation per se[/i']. Macro-evolution where it involves speciation would need some sort of mutation, but micro hardly ever involves mutation.

I agree that evolution does not always involve mutation, random genetic drift being an alternative. But I cannot think why you think that Micro involves different methods than Macro. It is my understanding that Macro is, in most cases, thought to be the accumulation of many Micro events leading to speciation, except in some possibly rare large mutations that would prevent one group from interbreeding with another.

Are you reserving Macro to define these specific cases?

 

I personally think that the Macro/Micro split is an unnecessary and misleading terminology. It is better to think of evolution as usually occurring in small steps leading to speciation and terming evolutionary events (not individual changes in an organism) as occurring at different levels i.e. below (Micro), at or above speciation level (Macro).

And I don't have any problem with punctuated equilibrium either (it’s such a great name).

[Mokele]

although evolution does not require mutaion per se. Macro-evolution where it involves speciation would need some sort of mutation, but micro hardly ever involves mutation.

 

I disagree, mutation is the fuel of evolution, without which evolution grinds to a halt. Basically natural selection choses among variants, but in doing so it eliminates variation, preserving only the single best option. Once all variation has been eliminated, evolution stops, and can go no further. Mutation is required to add variation to the gene pool for evolution to work with.

 

Technically, yes, if variation already exists, then evolution can happen without new mutation. But only in the short-term. Without mutation supplying heritable variation, evolution quickly runs out of "fuel", so to speak.

 

I personally think that the Macro/Micro split is an unnecessary and misleading terminology.

 

To the best of my knowledge, it's just used to define what level people study, rather than correpsonding to any real dichotomy.

 

I guess one could say there are differences, since in micro all the organisms involved can interbreed, but in macro they're doing the same but are in "teams". Still, for asexual species, that makes them the same since there's no exchange of genetic information anyway, and the mechanism is the same as well even in sexual species, it's just "scored" differently.

 

I agree that evolution does not always involve mutation, random genetic drift being an alternative.

 

But without mutation, where do the different alleles even come from in the first place? Genetic drift can act instead of natural selection, and it doesn't *require* mutation all the time, but, as I noted above, without constant mutation, any evolutionary process will eventually run out of fuel.

 

After all, if you think of genetic drift like scooping a handful of multi-colored beads, and then basing the next generation on that, your diveristy will inevitably decline over time, and without mutation to introduce new diversity, one day you'll just have a pot full of beads that are all the same color.

 

Mokele

[-Demosthenes-]

I disagree, mutation is the fuel of evolution, without which evolution grinds to a halt. Basically natural selection choses among variants, but in doing so it eliminates variation, preserving only the single best option. Once all variation has been eliminated, evolution stops, and can go no further. Mutation is required to add variation to the gene pool for evolution to work with.

I always thought that most genetic variation came from sexual reproduction, things like cross over and random changes in genetic material when it is reproduced. I have to admit my knowledge gets a little fuzy at this point. Can't new traits come about from merely new combinations of genes, or does mutation happen more often?

[Mokele]

I always thought that most genetic variation came from sexual reproduction, things like cross over and random changes in genetic material when it is reproduced. I have to admit my knowledge gets a little fuzy at this point. Can't new traits come about from merely new combinations of genes, or does mutation happen more often?

 

Well, crossing over mostly just shuffles genes around, without usually generating new alleles (though rarely it can), allowing genes that were previously inherited as a cluster to be acted upon separately by evolution.

 

Also, mutation is more common than we think. A recent study in nature found that hominids have, on average, 4 mutations/individual/generation that affect the final structure of the protien, many more than previously suspected.

 

However, the main problem is that it's a bit of a tautology. Mutation is defined as a process that alters the DNA sequence, especially that of genes, so whether the cause is replication errors, crossing over in the middle of a gene, chemical carcinogens/mutagens, or whatever, it's all technically mutation. So, by definition, any source of new alleles must be mutation, because changes in the genetic code are defined as 'mutation'.

 

Mokele

[Guest Archilla]

What intrests me is how we came to have so many alleles for eye color. I mean why not just stick to two; blue and brown. Why green of all the colours! And also why some people have a mixture of all the colours in one eye!!! Can anyone clarify??

[Mokele]

Random variation over time. Since eye color is unlikely to affect survival or reproduction, those alleles are not likely to be affected by selection. Thus, the continual influx of mutations will yield an ever-increasing number of colors.

 

Mokele

[Guest Archilla]

kl thanks for that... makes more sense now