Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Evolution vs. Creationism
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedEvolution vs. Creationism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2425262728 29>
Poll Question: What represents your opinion best?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [3.23%]
3 [4.84%]
12 [19.35%]
45 [72.58%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 16:40
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

There is no conflict in the various methods, all are capable of driving evolution dependant on the relative stability of environment, population sizes, etc. and whichever one is dominant is probably determined by the stability of all those factors. For example in a stable environment of small populations genetic drift may well overshadow any advances governed by natural selection.
 
I don't see where either of us has said that there is no natural selection, or even implied that.


I don't see either where I said there's no other force beside natural selection at work.

But how could for example genetic drift be a driving force in evolution?

"Genetic drift is an important evolutionary process which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success,[2] the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success."

As I see it - through layman eyes - genetic drift could not be a *driving* force like natural selection. It seems more like an element of chance to me. Of course elements of chance can also have great effects, but not in a guiding or driving manner.
quoting the same reference, just a few paragraphs later:
Originally posted by wiki wiki wrote:

Although both processes drive evolution, genetic drift operates randomly while natural selection functions non-randomly. This is because natural selection emblematizes the ecological interaction of a population, whereas drift is regarded as a sampling procedure across successive generations without regard to fitness pressures imposed by the environment. While natural selection is directioned, guiding evolution by impelling heritable adaptations to the environment, genetic drift has no direction and is guided only by the mathematics of chance.
What?
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 16:44
As I mentioned earlier, genetic drift really is a form of natural selection if you define natural selection broadly enough. That is, the conditions of an individual life matched right with the environment.
 
For example, if an asteroid hit off the coast of the Yucatan (a popular theory for the KT event) if a specific species was only present on the Yucatan, the may be completely wiped out. The only "viability" involved is distance from the blast radius.
 
This is a point still debated to this day about evolution. What's more important changes in the environment or changes in the species? I personally believe drift is much more important. You don't have to agree with me, but the point is that this process is very complex.
 
Genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium describe the way systems in general work, again based on boundary conditions and initial conditions. The fossil record is not smooth and continuous. But the environment is not static.
 
You must realize I coming from a scientific or rather, mathematical point of view. I love systems theory.
 
Here's a question for you...and you personally, in your own words, when you say "Natural Selection" what specifically do you mean?
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 16:48
^ the effect of the natural environment on the probability of survival for genetic variations of lifeforms. But regardless of whether I jump through your hoop or not, it's not my job to define a term that has long been defined.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 16:51
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

There is no conflict in the various methods, all are capable of driving evolution dependant on the relative stability of environment, population sizes, etc. and whichever one is dominant is probably determined by the stability of all those factors. For example in a stable environment of small populations genetic drift may well overshadow any advances governed by natural selection.
 
I don't see where either of us has said that there is no natural selection, or even implied that.


I don't see either where I said there's no other force beside natural selection at work.

But how could for example genetic drift be a driving force in evolution?

"Genetic drift is an important evolutionary process which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success,[2] the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success."

As I see it - through layman eyes - genetic drift could not be a *driving* force like natural selection. It seems more like an element of chance to me. Of course elements of chance can also have great effects, but not in a guiding or driving manner.
quoting the same reference, just a few paragraphs later:
Originally posted by wiki wiki wrote:

Although both processes drive evolution, genetic drift operates randomly while natural selection functions non-randomly. This is because natural selection emblematizes the ecological interaction of a population, whereas drift is regarded as a sampling procedure across successive generations without regard to fitness pressures imposed by the environment. While natural selection is directioned, guiding evolution by impelling heritable adaptations to the environment, genetic drift has no direction and is guided only by the mathematics of chance.


It boils down to how you define the word "drive" now. To employ an aphorism: I don't think that genetic drift was in the driver's seat.


What I don't get about your teaming up with Negoba to prove that I haven't completely mastered the English language: How does that, in any way, pertain to the subject of "Evolution vs. Creationism"? I have already admitted on several occasions that I don't have a degree in biology.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 16:55

It gets down to dicing words, but...

Usually when talking about natural selection you're talking about the fitness of the genes, and the change that occurs on that level.
 
Genetic Drift is about the importance of the effect of changes in environment on the alleles, and as per my example, simpler items such as locations, timing, dumb luck, govern this.
 
Punctuated Equilibrium is just a way of describing the stop-step patterns we see in allele frequencies.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 16:56
We're not trying to criticize your English, we're trying to criticize your science and your degree of confidence in an over-simplified view of evolution.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 16:58
^ can you describe the effect of genetic drift or punctuated equilibrium by a simple example? Especially how they play a greater role than natural selection.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 17:01
To be fair, I was criticizing his use of the English language. LOL
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 17:02
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 17:06
There are 100 people with the usual degree of difference in hair color and such.
 
A fire occurs, killing 90 of the people.
 
The traits of all the descendents is most dependent on who happened to survive the fire.
 
In small populations, relatively cataclysmic events happen frequently.
 
 
That's genetic drift.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 17:10
^ That's a relief, since it's not such a big help in explaining how evolution could have achieved complex forms of life like humans - is it? It can explain how some branches of the tree of life became extinct or others were favored, but it doesn't explain how those that were favored continued their evolution. To explain that, you need natural selection.

EDIT: Actually such a cataclysmic event could even be seen as an (extreme) case of natural selection - if the term was used in a slightly broader sense.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 06 2009 at 17:34
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 17:27
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

What I don't get about your teaming up with Negoba to prove that I haven't completely mastered the English language: How does that, in any way, pertain to the subject of "Evolution vs. Creationism"? I have already admitted on several occasions that I don't have a degree in biology.
I haven't teamed up with Jay or Stoney, and I've never criticised your use of English - the only time I have ever mentioned that English was not your first language was as a warning to Ambulance Man over his deliberate misinterpretation of your Splitting Atoms to generate electricity comment, so none of that is relevant to the E vs C topic. I also do not have a degree in biology, but this is one of my pet-subjects and has been for over 30 years (I did mention I read The Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker when the came out) - for many years I ran a website that looked at psuedoscience (including Creationism and ID) from a rational scientific viewpoint.
 
If you have been offended by my stance here then I appologise, it was never my intention.
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 17:32
^ no problem at all ... what bothers me more is that this is totally off topic and unnecessary to understand the principle of evolution by natural selection. I'm really annoyed by how Negoba is systematically trying to complicate the matter. "Willful Obscurity", I think that's the term Dan Dennett used in a similar situation.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 18:04
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ no problem at all ... what bothers me more is that this is totally off topic and unnecessary to understand the principle of evolution by natural selection. I'm really annoyed by how Negoba is systematically trying to complicate the matter. "Willful Obscurity", I think that's the term Dan Dennett used in a similar situation.
Well, one of the reasons is to equip all evolutionist with an arsenal of knowledge to combat the criticisms from the creationist/ID lobby, this includes discussing all evolutionary mechanisms even if only among ourselves, so when they come up with some example where natural selection appears to fail such as those mutations that do survive but are not necessary for survival (like hair colour), we can point to one of the other mechanisms that does explain it.
What?
Back to Top
Kestrel View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 18:16
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ no problem at all ... what bothers me more is that this is totally off topic and unnecessary to understand the principle of evolution by natural selection. I'm really annoyed by how Negoba is systematically trying to complicate the matter. "Willful Obscurity", I think that's the term Dan Dennett used in a similar situation.

I have to disagree with you here. Genetic drift is a powerful force in evolution. Unfortunately, Dawkins (and Coyne, to some extent, I believe) fall closer to "adaptationism" - the idea that natural selection can explain nearly everything of an organism's phenotype.

As far as I can tell, we currently do not know exactly how powerful drift is. We know it's incredibly important at the molecular level (neutral theory), but how this interacts with the phenotype is still a bit unclear. One example of the effects of drift is the fact that Native Americans all have an O blood type. (I haven't personally investigated this but it's an example I see often.)

One author, Michael Lynch, believes that most of the genomic architecture of eukrayotes can be explained by non-adaptive processes (paritcularly, drift). He believes that introns/exons, transposons, repetitive sequences, etc. are due to processes that are not natural selection.

This isn't a needless topic.

(Right now, I'm planning on writing a paper and presenting a seminar (undergrad senior seminar) about this very topic: What are the relative roles of natural selection and genetic drift in explaining the history of life? Or something along those lines at least. I'm still early in the research part though, so I can't give you a bunch of examples as to how important drift is. )
Back to Top
Kestrel View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 18:19
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ no problem at all ... what bothers me more is that this is totally off topic and unnecessary to understand the principle of evolution by natural selection. I'm really annoyed by how Negoba is systematically trying to complicate the matter. "Willful Obscurity", I think that's the term Dan Dennett used in a similar situation.
Well, one of the reasons is to equip all evolutionist with an arsenal of knowledge to combat the criticisms from the creationist/ID lobby, this includes discussing all evolutionary mechanisms even if only among ourselves, so when they come up with some example where natural selection appears to fail such as those mutations that do survive but are not necessary for survival (like hair colour), we can point to one of the other mechanisms that does explain it.

Here is Richard Dawkins' response to that:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/dawkins-on-chance.html?showComment=1234776660000#c3209241757955164035

I disagree with him, but whatever.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 20:40
I will continue to systematically try to complicate the matter.
 
For complexity is where the magic lies...Evil Smile
 
 
 
I have looked further to the sun...and the abyss
Than many
Any my bewilderment with the universe is greater still.
 
Behold the folly who have never looked once into the abyss
And feel secure.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
AmbianceMan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 22:37
Regarding the wolf to dog video.  This actually goes against your theory of evolution and is used in the creationist argument.  (But you already knew that I'm sure)
 
You do realize that there is no species change here right?  Micro-evolution is a fact, we see it, we breed it.  But not species differentiation (macro-evolution).  These are highly different.  Breed a bird into a velociraptor and I'll be impressed.
 
I believe the only "evolution" happening is de-evolution or devolution depending on who you ask.  In order to breed animals such as dogs or horses, you "breed out" bad genetic information.  You are not "breeding in" better information.  So in each case we are talking about genetic information being lost.  Nothing is gaining genetic material, only losing.  (Detractors paste your wikipedia link here, we know how reliable they are) So I postulate that humans are less intelligent and less healthy than when man began.  That's why we have so many imperfections, crooked ears, asymmetrical faces, more cases of cancer, DNA anomalies.
 


Edited by AmbianceMan - December 06 2009 at 22:58
Back to Top
AmbianceMan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 22:45
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ no problem at all ... what bothers me more is that this is totally off topic and unnecessary to understand the principle of evolution by natural selection. I'm really annoyed by how Negoba is systematically trying to complicate the matter. "Willful Obscurity", I think that's the term Dan Dennett used in a similar situation.
Well, one of the reasons is to equip all evolutionist with an arsenal of knowledge to combat the criticisms from the creationist/ID lobby, this includes discussing all evolutionary mechanisms even if only among ourselves, so when they come up with some example where natural selection appears to fail such as those mutations that do survive but are not necessary for survival (like hair colour), we can point to one of the other mechanisms that does explain it.
 
The same goes for the creationist crowd.  We have our own and equally valid arsenal.
 
But herein lies the problem.......
 
You can't get past the problem of how matter came to be.  All these posts, all these threads, all these arguments....pointless until you get past the problem of the "spontaneously appearing matter".
 
I think people just want a complicated argument, and dismiss this little question because they think they are above it.  I can't believe this topic hasn't been discussed more considering the thread.  Also, I think deep down they have no answer, and realize the scientific explanations don't make much sense.  So go look this up and copy and paste some links and videos about where it came from....but it will fail to answer it satisfactorily, every time.


Edited by AmbianceMan - December 06 2009 at 22:59
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 01:39
Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

Regarding the wolf to dog video.  This actually goes against your theory of evolution and is used in the creationist argument.  (But you already knew that I'm sure)
 
You do realize that there is no species change here right?  Micro-evolution is a fact, we see it, we breed it.  But not species differentiation (macro-evolution).  These are highly different.  Breed a bird into a velociraptor and I'll be impressed.
 
I believe the only "evolution" happening is de-evolution or devolution depending on who you ask.  In order to breed animals such as dogs or horses, you "breed out" bad genetic information.  You are not "breeding in" better information.  So in each case we are talking about genetic information being lost.  Nothing is gaining genetic material, only losing.  (Detractors paste your wikipedia link here, we know how reliable they are) So I postulate that humans are less intelligent and less healthy than when man began.  That's why we have so many imperfections, crooked ears, asymmetrical faces, more cases of cancer, DNA anomalies.
 


LOLClap

A text book example on how Creationists pervert the theory of evolution. There's absolutely no need to comment on those points, they speak for themselves and only underscore how desperate Creationists have become over the years. If all else fails, try to discredit your opponent.Sleepy
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2425262728 29>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.