Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WalrusGumBoot · 05-14-2002, 09:56 PM

I'm still new to this board and lurk a lot, but this topic made me want to post because it is something I have wondered about. Before I do, my background is a lot of Christian influence and churchgoing, but I am open-minded, and I have been straddling the evolution-creation fence now for quite some time. I consider myself a pretty intelligent person, but admittedly not a ton of study in the sciences closely related to evolutionary theory. There now, that is done, so on to what I want to ask.

I have always wondered about the chances of random mutations actually producing something worthwhile and progressive to a species. For example, I have always been fascinated by the angler fish (I saw a show on them on the Discovery Channel). They got a literal fishing pole attached to it's back that it "casts" forward, a "fishing line" extends from it, and a worm-like blob at the end. Oh, the worm can glow in the dark too (that is pretty slick). It flicks the worm until prey come to investigate.. then GULP!

I guess my confusion is if mutation are purely random, and the mutation survives because somehow it helps the species adapt better to the environment, then what's the purpose of the "fishing pole"? Was it one lazy ass fish that didn't feel like pursuing it's prey? If it was so lazy, I'm sure the species would be extinct by starvation before the fishing pole was evolved enough to be effective.

Regarding the fishing pole, it is even known whether the "glow" of the worm evolved with it, or was this feature added later? If the worm worked well without the glow, would the glow evolved anyway? If not, then it almost appears that evolution has some intelligence behind it, but it can't because it's random. Argghh! My mind is-a spinnin!

I know this forum has a lot of evolution brain-iacs, but if you all can stoop down to my level for a moment and help me get some understanding, it would be mucho appreciato.

cricket · 05-14-2002, 11:00 PM

Hi Walrus,

I won't need to stoop; I'm not a brainy scientist. I'm not a brainy *anything*. In my non-brainy opinion, the glow evolved later. In the beginning the 'worm' was just worm-looking; not glow-worm-looking. JMHO.

cricket · 05-14-2002, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Regarding the fishing pole, it is even known whether the "glow" of the worm evolved with it, or was this feature added later?

Oops; answered that part (IMO) above.

Here we go:

Quote:

If the worm worked well without the glow, would the glow evolved anyway?

No, not unless by chance there was a glow mutation... which there *was*.

If a feature works 'well enough', it may yet evolve further and become a feature that works even better.

cricket · 05-14-2002, 11:27 PM

Quote:

If not, then it almost appears that evolution has some intelligence behind it, but it can't because it's random.

No; only the mutation is random; its evolution is anything but random. A 'worm' that is somewhat more visible would be selected for. In a small breeding pool that 'easier to see' "worm" could become a glowing worm in just a few hundred years. This would have to do with its success in terms of natural selection; has nothing to do with randomness.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: cricket ]</p>

Peez · 05-15-2002, 10:56 AM

Quote:

WalrusGumBoot:
I'm still new to this board and lurk a lot, but this topic made me want to post because it is something I have wondered about. Before I do, my background is a lot of Christian influence and churchgoing, but I am open-minded, and I have been straddling the evolution-creation fence now for quite some time. I consider myself a pretty intelligent person, but admittedly not a ton of study in the sciences closely related to evolutionary theory. There now, that is done, so on to what I want to ask.

Hi and welcome. I hope that we can help you to learn about evolution.

Quote:

I have always wondered about the chances of random mutations actually producing something worthwhile and progressive to a species. For example, I have always been fascinated by the angler fish (I saw a show on them on the Discovery Channel). They got a literal fishing pole attached to it's back that it "casts" forward, a "fishing line" extends from it, and a worm-like blob at the end. Oh, the worm can glow in the dark too (that is pretty slick). It flicks the worm until prey come to investigate.. then GULP!

I guess my confusion is if mutation are purely random, and the mutation survives because somehow it helps the species adapt better to the environment, then what's the purpose of the "fishing pole"? Was it one lazy ass fish that didn't feel like pursuing it's prey? If it was so lazy, I'm sure the species would be extinct by starvation before the fishing pole was evolved enough to be effective.

Regarding the fishing pole, it is even known whether the "glow" of the worm evolved with it, or was this feature added later? If the worm worked well without the glow, would the glow evolved anyway? If not, then it almost appears that evolution has some intelligence behind it, but it can't because it's random. Argghh! My mind is-a spinnin!

I know this forum has a lot of evolution brain-iacs, but if you all can stoop down to my level for a moment and help me get some understanding, it would be mucho appreciato.

Don't talk yourself down, those are interesting questions. To start with, I wish to clarify what a random mutation is. A mutation is a change in the DNA in a cell. Once this DNA is changed, the new version of DNA is copied and passed on to the descendants of that cell. The mutation may be caused by a mistake by the enzymes that copy the DNA, a chemical that reacts with the DNA, or energy from radiation which may damage the DNA. Since most of our DNA (more than 95%) does not appear to be used for anything specific (it is �non-coding'), the great majority of mutations do not have any detectable effect on us.

Changes in �coding' DNA will often have little or no effect, for reasons that can be rather complex. Still, sometimes a mutation will result in a difference in the organism. Whether this difference makes the organism more adapted to its environment or less adapted to its environment depends on many factors, but since the organisms that we see are the result of many generations of natural selection (which has tended to leave only the best genes), any change is more likely to decrease an organism's fitness than to increase it in that particular environment. Of course, if the environment changes in some way, the situation can be quite different.

When we say that mutations are random, we mean that any given mutation (change in DNA) will not preferentially produce a new gene that is useful in that environment. For example, just because the ancestors of the angler fish could benefit from a worm-like extension of their body did not make it more likely that a mutation would occur that produced that form. In fact, many other fish (and even reptiles, etc.) almost certainly had the same mutation. The difference in the ancestral angler fish was that the new gene made the fish more likely to survive and reproduce (it was favoured by natural selection).

Now, let us take a look at the evolution of the lure of the angler fish. I know nothing about this particular example, and I cannot give any evidence for this hypothetical evolutionary pathway (I am sure that there are at least several believable ones), but perhaps this proposed �route' will help you to understand the evolutionary process.

I will start with the ancestral angler fish, and I will assume that it was an unremarkable carnivorous fish living so deep that there was not much light: moving slowly through the water and gulping any fish that �stumbled' close to it (and would fit into its mouth), having no lure or glowing tissues. This fish had many genes that controlled the growth of its body, and thereby the size and shape of its body. Since we can be patient, we will watch this species for a short one million years. If they had a generation time of two years (birth to adult), this would be 500,000 generations. Let's go with a population in the oceans of only one million, and only two mutations per generation. This gives us one trillion (1,000,000,000,000) mutations in living angler fish ancestors. Bearing in mind that this fish probably has only about 10,000 genes, there have been a lot of these fish born with long fins, short fins, wide mouths, twisted heads, extra fins, knobs on the back, upside-down stomach, short intestines, darker colour, lighter colour on top, etc., etc., etc.

Now, all we need is one of these fish with an ugly growth on its forehead, just a finger-like projection. Actually, it could have been on its chin, tongue, nose, etc., it didn't have to be on the forehead, but in this case it was. This fish may have had a slight advantage over other members of its species as some of the fish around it in the dim light may have mistaken that growth on the head for a �worm' sticking out of the ground. As the hapless worm-eater came too close, the angler ancestor ate it. This particular angler would then get lots of food, lay lots of eggs, and the gene that caused that ugly growth would become more and more common in the population. Finally, virtually all of them had this growth.

Keeping it simple, let us watch for another 1 million years (1 trillion mutations). It should not surprise us that a new mutation might lengthen the growth, while another might increase the fish's tendency to move slowly. These new genes would also spread in the population, as each would tend to increase the fish's ability to survive and reproduce.

Well, we have nothing better to do, so we will watch for another 1 million years. Among the most recent 1 trillion mutations we find one that changes an enzyme slightly. The old enzyme promoted a chemical reaction that released energy in the form of heat, but the new enzyme released some of that energy as light. This enzyme was being produced in all of the cells of the fish, so the entire fish glowed softly. In that near-dark water, even this soft glow attracted attention and brought other fish close enough to see the long growth on the ancestral angler's head, bringing them close enough to be eaten. Given time, this new gene also becomes common in the population.

Just one more million years, I promise, just sit and watch. In the newest trillion mutations there are three mutations of interest: one changes the shape of the growth to make it more like a worm, one restricts the production of the light enzyme to the lure, and one tends to make the fish live deeper down. Once these spread in the population, you pretty much have an angler fish.

Whew, that's long enough! I hope that it is helpful.

Peez

Nic Tamzek · 05-15-2002, 04:49 PM

Regarding the anglerfish, I can remember that there is a Stephen J. Gould essay somewhere about it -- IIRC there is in fact a family of related fish species with spines, some of which look mildly lure-ish, some of which look *very* lure-ish.

E.g.:

This is from <a href="http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/W/Welcome.html" target="_blank">Kimball's Biology Pages</a> which are great by the way. He writes,

Quote:

The angler fish (Antennarius) displays a lure resembling a small fish. The lure is a development of the spine of the first dorsal fin. This species of anglerfish, which was found in the Philippines, is 9.5 cm long. Note its use of camouflage: its texture (and color) closely resemble the sponge- and algae-encrusted rocks found in its habitat.

I had to dig through several pages of my search engine spitting up creationist drivel on the angler fish before finding just this little worthwhile bit. It looks like to find out much more one would have to visit a library...hang on...oh, cool, persistence pays off, check this out:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/angler/fish.html" target="_blank">The Angler Fish</a>

You can see how this kind of adaptation could get started when you look at a species like this, which has lots of spines that aren't lures, and one that is a lure but not a particularly fantastic one:

From there they can lose the rest of the spines...

...and a heck of a lot uglier, this thing looks like it's from a horror movie...

(note also another interesting feature of anglerfish, the fact that the male is tiny and mates by biting the female and eventually getting permanently attached as a kind of parasitic little sperm bank for the female...yet another example of the common biological trend of "being a male sucks", another thing that evolution explains nicely but where design is left hapless)

Later, nic

Nic Tamzek · 05-15-2002, 05:26 PM

BTW, this website came up on page 5 of my google search:

<a href="http://www.textbookleague.org/73bio.htm" target="_blank">http://www.textbookleague.org/73bio.htm</a>

Regarding the treatment of anglerfish in one fairly poor biology textbook, it says,

Quote:

Page 817: "The angler fish has perfected a unique way to catch a meal. They [sic] live deep in the sea where there is total darkness, and use a 'rod and bait' to attract and catch other fish. . . . Making the lure even more effective is its luminescence, which can be switched on and off." Golly, that's amusing! It's also silly. There are scores of species of anglerfishes, not just one; some of them live in the deep sea, but most do not; and most do not have luminescent lures. But what is most objectionable here is the claim that a fish "has perfected" something. That is a teleological fancy, and the notion of a "perfect" structure or a "perfect" organism is another leftover from and earlier century.

But leaving aside anglerfish, I'd like to point out that this is a whole website which reviews high school and middle schoold textbooks,

<a href="http://www.textbookleague.org" target="_blank">http://www.textbookleague.org</a>

...and which has been doing so for many years without the help of Jonathan Wells and co. Many of the reviews are quite negative (although I am convinced that writing a middle school or high school biology text that satisfies both (a) the needs of 12-year olds and their teachers and (b) satisifies the college biology profs who do the reviewing is a difficult-to-impossible task).

Here is the biology section:

<a href="http://www.textbookleague.org/ttlindex.htm#gbio-hsb" target="_blank">http://www.textbookleague.org/ttlindex.htm#gbio-hsb</a>

And here is an interesting essay:

<a href="http://www.textbookleague.org/sp-nogo.htm" target="_blank">Religious preaching makes these books unfit for use in public schools</a>

Quote:

William J. Bennetta
When we examine the textbooks that major publishers try to sell to public schools, we sometimes find fraudulent passages that function as instruments of religious indoctrination: Religious myths are depicted as accounts of real people and events, religious superstitions are depicted as matters of fact, and the origins of religious writings are obscured or are wrapped in outright lies.
These passages of religious propaganda have been devised by individuals or groups that seek to use the public schools for spreading their own sectarian doctrines and for recruiting converts. In various cases, publishers evidently have accepted material from religious pressure groups and have put the material into textbooks, even though it is laden with blatant preaching, miracle-mongering and fake "history." I assume that the textbook-publishers have required the pressure groups to pay for this service, but I am not aware of any instance in which a publisher has admitted to collecting a fee for disseminating religious stuff.

Because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids the erection of any official religion by any agency of government, it is illegal for public schools to deliver instruction that has been "tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." (See the decision issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).) Public-school educators must bear this restriction in mind, not only when they design curricula but also when they adopt textbooks. If a textbook subjects students to sectarian indoctrination, the use of that book in a public school will run afoul of basic constitutional principles and will invite lawsuits.

Here are is a list of some recent and current textbooks in which I have found substantial loads of sectarian propaganda, clearly intended to indoctrinate students. In my judgment, the religious preaching in these books renders them unfit for use in public schools. To learn about the propaganda that appears in any individual book, click on the colored symbol beside the book's title.

...although he appears to be looking at history books rather than biology books. Just goes to show that "I want my religion in textbooks" is not a problem only in biology classes...

Also, the <a href="http://www.textbookleague.org/ttlindex.htm#crank" target="_blank">"Crank literature and hoaxes" section</a>, including:

Haughton Publishing's Of Pandas and People 1989 and 1993

<a href="http://www.textbookleague.org/53panda.htm" target="_blank">http://www.textbookleague.org/53panda.htm</a>

...the first publication of the modern ID movement, as I like to point out.

The Textbook Letter was actually rather prophetic way back in 1990:

Quote:

Pandas will not be taken seriously by any teacher who has a professional knowledge of science, because such a teacher will easily recognize its sophisms and its purpose. Even so, it merits the attention of everyone who is concerned about the creationists' continuing attack on science education. I say that for two reasons:

First, many teachers who must give science courses have not had any scientific training. Pandas will seem credible to some of those teachers, because it is very slick. Its pages show design features that are used in legitimate schoolbooks; it has a lot of sciencey illustrations, such as diagrams, tables and pictures of fossils: and it uses a lot of arcane words.

Second, Pandas seems to reflect a new strategy by which creationists are seeking to evade the Constitution. Instead of trying to force "creation-science" into schools through legislation, they evidently want to ease it in by supplying bogus publications to educators. The FTE's project -- the creation of a complete, bogus schoolbook -- appears to be an especially ambitious application of that strategy. I have no doubt that we shall see others.

Interesting that I'd never seen this webpage before, it really is quite handy.

nic

Peez · 05-16-2002, 11:05 AM

Great posts, Nic!

Peez

WalrusGumBoot · 05-17-2002, 09:37 PM

Thanks all for the posts and the pics! That last one kind of looked like Alfred Hitchcock! Scary!

Peez, special thanks for the long post which took some time for you to type in. It helped a lot. I don't *mean* to talk myself down, but for a long time I was ignorant about everything regarding evolution. I was a smart enough guy, but going to a Baptist church for years and years (young earth, literal interpretation, you know the rest). I was watching one particular show on the Discovery Channel about asteroids. It showed satellite pictures of worldwide asteroid impact points that have become part of the "landscape" of it's surrounding, like the crater in the Gulf of Mexico at the Yucatan Peninsula. Well, as a young earth follower, this example and others absolutely flew in the face of a young earth. Naturally, this shook the very foundations of my belief system, and my reaction was like a child being told there was no Santa Claus. This started it all, my quest for the truth, for lacking a better phrase.

Subsequently questioning the age of the earth in private with some of my Baptists buddies brought a reaction like you'd see if I told them I shot my dog. Even QUESTIONING. I never imagined a reaction like that, but now I realize they are probably struggling with what I did and opening up the possibilty of an old earth would shake them up too, so they were on the defensive. However, like a breath of fresh air, I did meet a professor in my church who spent the majority of his life teaching evolution, but since had abandoned it and became a creationist, albeit an old earth creationist. We discussed the subject for hours.

Like I said, at this point I am still straddling the fence. I see before me three options: naturalist, Biblical creationist, or somewhere in between (a god who created the universe and laws of the universe and dispersed the seeds of life throughout to evolve). I really don't know if I like the first two options very much, the first being doomed to nothingness, and the second, well, I'm sure I deserve hell now! <grin>.

It's very hard for me to reject the notion of us not being spiritual beings in some way, because I myself have experienced some pretty miraculous things, coupled with what I have seen my wife and other christians I have known experience. I prefer an existance of a god to not, and have often wondered if there is a god, maybe he has evolved from nothingness (why not? If there is physical evolution, why not the same concept in the spiritual realm?)

Anyway, I am wayyyy digressing here, but I guess I found a place that I can discuss some of the things that I have to keep bottled up in my daily life.

scigirl · 05-18-2002, 02:49 PM

Hello WalrusGumBoot (your name reminds me of a crazy Beatles song) and welcome to II!

Quote:

Originally posted by WalrusGumBoot:
It's very hard for me to reject the notion of us not being spiritual beings in some way, because I myself have experienced some pretty miraculous things, coupled with what I have seen my wife and other christians I have known experience.

I understand this feeling, really I do. You may want to check out our <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">Welcome forum</a> and read people's "testimonies." It's always refreshing to read about how other people's experiences parallel our own. For me, letting go of my religion actually allowed me to become a more spiritual person, but anyway that's a subject for another forum. . .

Quote:

Anyway, I am wayyyy digressing here, but I guess I found a place that I can discuss some of the things that I have to keep bottled up in my daily life.

Awesome! I hope you find what you are looking for here. We have an interesing and very diverse group of people here.

Back to evolution, you can check out <a href="http://talkorigins.org/" target="_blank">talkorigins</a> for topics ranging from pure science to the science/religion controversy, and the <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">evolution evidence page</a> for more detailed science. Again, welcome and have fun learning.

scigirl

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2002, 09:56 PM	#11
WalrusGumBoot Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hempstead, Texas Posts: 20	I'm still new to this board and lurk a lot, but this topic made me want to post because it is something I have wondered about. Before I do, my background is a lot of Christian influence and churchgoing, but I am open-minded, and I have been straddling the evolution-creation fence now for quite some time. I consider myself a pretty intelligent person, but admittedly not a ton of study in the sciences closely related to evolutionary theory. There now, that is done, so on to what I want to ask. I have always wondered about the chances of random mutations actually producing something worthwhile and progressive to a species. For example, I have always been fascinated by the angler fish (I saw a show on them on the Discovery Channel). They got a literal fishing pole attached to it's back that it "casts" forward, a "fishing line" extends from it, and a worm-like blob at the end. Oh, the worm can glow in the dark too (that is pretty slick). It flicks the worm until prey come to investigate.. then GULP! I guess my confusion is if mutation are purely random, and the mutation survives because somehow it helps the species adapt better to the environment, then what's the purpose of the "fishing pole"? Was it one lazy ass fish that didn't feel like pursuing it's prey? If it was so lazy, I'm sure the species would be extinct by starvation before the fishing pole was evolved enough to be effective. Regarding the fishing pole, it is even known whether the "glow" of the worm evolved with it, or was this feature added later? If the worm worked well without the glow, would the glow evolved anyway? If not, then it almost appears that evolution has some intelligence behind it, but it can't because it's random. Argghh! My mind is-a spinnin! I know this forum has a lot of evolution brain-iacs, but if you all can stoop down to my level for a moment and help me get some understanding, it would be mucho appreciato.

05-14-2002, 11:00 PM	#12
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188	Hi Walrus, I won't need to stoop; I'm not a brainy scientist. I'm not a brainy anything. In my non-brainy opinion, the glow evolved later. In the beginning the 'worm' was just worm-looking; not glow-worm-looking. JMHO.

05-16-2002, 11:05 AM	#18
Peez Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 5,504	Great posts, Nic! Peez

05-17-2002, 09:37 PM	#19
WalrusGumBoot Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hempstead, Texas Posts: 20	Thanks all for the posts and the pics! That last one kind of looked like Alfred Hitchcock! Scary! Peez, special thanks for the long post which took some time for you to type in. It helped a lot. I don't mean to talk myself down, but for a long time I was ignorant about everything regarding evolution. I was a smart enough guy, but going to a Baptist church for years and years (young earth, literal interpretation, you know the rest). I was watching one particular show on the Discovery Channel about asteroids. It showed satellite pictures of worldwide asteroid impact points that have become part of the "landscape" of it's surrounding, like the crater in the Gulf of Mexico at the Yucatan Peninsula. Well, as a young earth follower, this example and others absolutely flew in the face of a young earth. Naturally, this shook the very foundations of my belief system, and my reaction was like a child being told there was no Santa Claus. This started it all, my quest for the truth, for lacking a better phrase. Subsequently questioning the age of the earth in private with some of my Baptists buddies brought a reaction like you'd see if I told them I shot my dog. Even QUESTIONING. I never imagined a reaction like that, but now I realize they are probably struggling with what I did and opening up the possibilty of an old earth would shake them up too, so they were on the defensive. However, like a breath of fresh air, I did meet a professor in my church who spent the majority of his life teaching evolution, but since had abandoned it and became a creationist, albeit an old earth creationist. We discussed the subject for hours. Like I said, at this point I am still straddling the fence. I see before me three options: naturalist, Biblical creationist, or somewhere in between (a god who created the universe and laws of the universe and dispersed the seeds of life throughout to evolve). I really don't know if I like the first two options very much, the first being doomed to nothingness, and the second, well, I'm sure I deserve hell now! <grin>. It's very hard for me to reject the notion of us not being spiritual beings in some way, because I myself have experienced some pretty miraculous things, coupled with what I have seen my wife and other christians I have known experience. I prefer an existance of a god to not, and have often wondered if there is a god, maybe he has evolved from nothingness (why not? If there is physical evolution, why not the same concept in the spiritual realm?) Anyway, I am wayyyy digressing here, but I guess I found a place that I can discuss some of the things that I have to keep bottled up in my daily life.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.