Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 05-23-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

The general driving force behind evolutionary theory is natrual selection, that the traits best suited for survival will thrive while the traits not suited for survival will disapear (and this has been observed). Now it would make sense that over time as this survival of the fittest occurs certain traits would completly be done away with, thus narrowing the gene pool. The problem is that in the whole of evoultionary theory, life started with a simple organism and then "evolved" to more complex organism. In order for this to happen new traits have to be added, not subtracted as natural selection would say. The major explaniation offered for how this happens is mutation. I do not remember the exact odds but the chance of a mutation ocurring at all are rare. A chance of a benifital mutation even rarer, and the chance of a single being with a mutation to survive and propagate are also rare. I wonder how many mutations it would take to create something as complex as the human eye? Not to mention a human in general, and that is just one species. I am not a mathmatician but the mathmatical odds against these mutations as to be huge!

Personally, I think it takes more faith to seriously believe that is possible than to believe that there is a Creator.

Can somebody give me a basic response to that? A simplistic one that a high school biology student might understand.

Thanks,
Vinnie

Blinn · 05-23-2002, 06:56 PM

Read <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/" target="_blank">this</a>.

RufusAtticus · 05-23-2002, 07:20 PM

Vinnie,

The poster is right. Selection does decrease the variation in the gene pool. Mutation replaces it. The poster is wrong to argue that mutation is incapable of repalacing it. He has not provided any equations to back up the argument that it is impossible for mutation to replace variation. This is probably because he hasn't actually looked into it, and stating that it can't just sounds right to him. Furthermore, the poster has ignored neutral mutation which are the greatest contribution to genetic diversity.

The truth is that for some populations, selection does decrease diversity faster than mutation can replace it. Such populations would tend to die out and go extinct. But luckly, that is not the case for all populations, so life still truges along making more life.

The argument basically boils now to "wow, I can't beleive how that works, thus it doesn't work."

~~RvFvS~~

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Vinnie · 05-23-2002, 07:49 PM

Thanks to the both of you. I actually searched the talk origins archive. I didn't find what I was looking for before I posted here but I did find another article I enjoyed reading on a different subject.

Thanks again,
Vinnie

pug846 · 05-23-2002, 08:01 PM

I never understood simplistic arguments like this. Does this person really feel like they have found such a fundamental problem with evolutionary biology that scientists, theist and non-theist alike, would have missed it? The arrogance of some people amazes me.

Vinnie · 05-23-2002, 08:22 PM

I don't think the person who advocated the argument is arrogant. I understand how it seems that way. I often think that too. But the person is probably just misguided. They are tuned to believe Genesis must be literallry true. They know little about science and read some YEC literature. If I was scientifically illiterate when I converted to Christianity I would have been a YEC (for a while). I was an OEC for a while. I am sure you know how it goes. I think many Christians don't realize how technical and complex science gets in a lot of areas. They just don't understand it very well and end up using prima facie arguments. In reality that is all they know of these topics. I am not speaking of university trained science majors, but of everyday churchgoers.

Vinnie

Mr.Kitchen · 05-23-2002, 08:37 PM

Dawkins also has an article addressing this topic at <a href="http://www.skeptic.com" target="_blank">www.skeptic.com</a> . Here is a <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/archives41.html" target="_blank">link.</a>

seebs · 05-23-2002, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ilgwamh:
<strong>
Can somebody give me a basic response to that? A simplistic one that a high school biology student might understand.
</strong>

I'd start with "That's bunk." If they really want to know, they'll probably need to do some serious thinking.

The best answer I ever saw was based on information theory, but... not an easy one to explain to anyone who doesn't have the background.

scigirl · 05-23-2002, 10:45 PM

You could point out that certain traits are not necessarily "good" or "bad," it just depends on the situation.

Case in point: The immune system. A mutation which causes it to be under-activated will make us more susceptible to microbes, but decrease such things as allergy, asthma, and auto-immune disorders A mutation that causes it to over-activate will make it harder for bacteria and viruses to invade, but will increase the risk of the autoimmune disorders. Nature is a constant struggle for balance between two extremes, rarely can you use the words "good" and "bad" when talking about Her. Therefore there is no way to eliminate all the bad mutations.

Does that make sense at 1 am?

scigirl

joshack · 05-24-2002, 12:30 AM

I haven't checked the links others have posted (no time), but I'd recommend doing a search on mutation rates. They are different for different species, but they are actually not that rare - for some reason I seem to recall the number 4 per person (human) of neutral mutations.

Additionally, there are a variety of things that will bump up the probability of beneficial mutations taking hold. Larger populations feature more genetic variation, and so there are more directional possibilities the genome can take in a species. The more neutral mutations, the greater a chance one can become beneficial if the environment changes. Ecological isolation of a part of a population can cause much quicker fixation of a genetic trait as well. Therefore, creation of new species may have taken a long time at the "beginning" due to lack of a large, genetically diverse population, but probably increased more quickly from there on.

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

05-23-2002, 06:56 PM	#2
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	Read <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/" target="_blank">this</a>.

05-23-2002, 07:20 PM	#3
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Vinnie, The poster is right. Selection does decrease the variation in the gene pool. Mutation replaces it. The poster is wrong to argue that mutation is incapable of repalacing it. He has not provided any equations to back up the argument that it is impossible for mutation to replace variation. This is probably because he hasn't actually looked into it, and stating that it can't just sounds right to him. Furthermore, the poster has ignored neutral mutation which are the greatest contribution to genetic diversity. The truth is that for some populations, selection does decrease diversity faster than mutation can replace it. Such populations would tend to die out and go extinct. But luckly, that is not the case for all populations, so life still truges along making more life. The argument basically boils now to "wow, I can't beleive how that works, thus it doesn't work." ~~RvFvS~~ [ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

05-23-2002, 07:49 PM	#4
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Thanks to the both of you. I actually searched the talk origins archive. I didn't find what I was looking for before I posted here but I did find another article I enjoyed reading on a different subject. Thanks again, Vinnie

05-23-2002, 08:01 PM	#5
pug846 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 1,587	I never understood simplistic arguments like this. Does this person really feel like they have found such a fundamental problem with evolutionary biology that scientists, theist and non-theist alike, would have missed it? The arrogance of some people amazes me.

05-23-2002, 08:22 PM	#6
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I don't think the person who advocated the argument is arrogant. I understand how it seems that way. I often think that too. But the person is probably just misguided. They are tuned to believe Genesis must be literallry true. They know little about science and read some YEC literature. If I was scientifically illiterate when I converted to Christianity I would have been a YEC (for a while). I was an OEC for a while. I am sure you know how it goes. I think many Christians don't realize how technical and complex science gets in a lot of areas. They just don't understand it very well and end up using prima facie arguments. In reality that is all they know of these topics. I am not speaking of university trained science majors, but of everyday churchgoers. Vinnie

05-23-2002, 08:37 PM	#7
Mr.Kitchen Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Oxford, Mississippi Posts: 172	Dawkins also has an article addressing this topic at <a href="http://www.skeptic.com" target="_blank">www.skeptic.com</a> . Here is a <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/archives41.html" target="_blank">link.</a>

05-23-2002, 10:45 PM	#9
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	You could point out that certain traits are not necessarily "good" or "bad," it just depends on the situation. Case in point: The immune system. A mutation which causes it to be under-activated will make us more susceptible to microbes, but decrease such things as allergy, asthma, and auto-immune disorders A mutation that causes it to over-activate will make it harder for bacteria and viruses to invade, but will increase the risk of the autoimmune disorders. Nature is a constant struggle for balance between two extremes, rarely can you use the words "good" and "bad" when talking about Her. Therefore there is no way to eliminate all the bad mutations. Does that make sense at 1 am? scigirl

05-24-2002, 12:30 AM	#10
joshack Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: valley of the hell, AZ Posts: 26	I haven't checked the links others have posted (no time), but I'd recommend doing a search on mutation rates. They are different for different species, but they are actually not that rare - for some reason I seem to recall the number 4 per person (human) of neutral mutations. Additionally, there are a variety of things that will bump up the probability of beneficial mutations taking hold. Larger populations feature more genetic variation, and so there are more directional possibilities the genome can take in a species. The more neutral mutations, the greater a chance one can become beneficial if the environment changes. Ecological isolation of a part of a population can cause much quicker fixation of a genetic trait as well. Therefore, creation of new species may have taken a long time at the "beginning" due to lack of a large, genetically diverse population, but probably increased more quickly from there on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.