Posted on 08/21/2006 6:57:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Were the Theory of Evolution even remotely like the grotesque caricature presented by various creationist and intelligent design websites, there would be no debate. It is pernicious that one of the most elegant works of science should be so routinely misrepresented. Before one can evaluate a theory's merits, he is obliged to at least understand what it actually does -- and does not -- state. Failing to understand something before attempting debate against it is absolute folly. Therefore, we offer the following:
1. In every generation, some individuals of a species fail to reproduce. Whether due to biological inadequacy or other mishap, their genetic material is dropped from the species' gene pool. Each new generation is the product of only those individuals that reproduce successfully. ("Success" is a relative term; differential success, like failure, can effect the genetic future of a species.)
2. By eliminating the genetic material of unsuccessful individuals and preserving the rest, nature imposes a filter -- successful reproduction -- on the genetic material of all living things. Because each generation is the result of this filter, the "genetic inventory" of each generation always differs from the one before it. Creationists call this "micro evolution." Please note: individuals never change; they either reproduce or they don't. It's the genetic inventory of a species that changes over time.
3. Mutations occur with virtually every act of reproduction. All genetic material, whether mutated or precisely copied, is subject to nature's filter. If a mutation is neutral or beneficial, or maybe not too harmful, it can endure as part of that species' genetic inventory; otherwise it's filtered out. Mutations that were originally neutral may turn out to be useful or harmful due to changing environmental circumstances, and will be filtered accordingly. If useful, a mutated characteristic can become prevalent within a few generations, and may seem to have wondrously appeared in response to an environmental challenge. In reality, a previously irrelevant feature has become advantageous.
4. Severe environmental changes can enhance the filter's effect, by eliminating numerous individuals that have become inadequate, leaving relatively few individuals whose genetic material will determine the species' future. This will cause rapid changes in the species' genetic inventory. Over thousands of generations, the genetic inventory of a species can become so changed that, by comparison with ancestors in the fossil record, we observe that a new species has evolved from the ancestral version. (Creationists call this "macro evolution" and deny that it occurs.) Conversely, during long periods of environmental stability, there may be only "routine" filtering for continued fitness, and no obvious speciation.
5. As successful species multiply and spread out over a large area, groups can become isolated, forming separate breeding populations. Over great periods of time, depending on environmental factors and the occurrence of mutations, a separate group can (if it doesn't go extinct) evolve into a new species; or it can remain relatively unchanged. The result may be a multitude of species (some living, some extinct) that can be traced to their common ancestral group. Over time, each new species can repeat this process, causing increasingly diverse species to radiate from a common origin.
Commentary: From our point of view, the filter (nature's evolution algorithm) can result in an enormous amount of waste. Uncountable legions of creatures are conceived, but never survive long enough to reproduce. What we might regard as good and useful is sometimes filtered out along with the bad. But the rule is not what we might like: "Everything nice will be preserved." Instead, it is strikingly simple -- as natural laws must be -- functioning with inexorable predictability, with no subjective judgments built in. Simply stated, the rule is this: "Only that which successfully breeds can produce players in the next round." Therefore, when the avalanche is falling, there's no soft voice that says: "Oh, this one has such nice genes, let's whisk it out of harm's way." The evolution algorithm is marvelously elegant in its operation -- but it's not what we would expect of an intelligent designer.
Agreed. This was a well-written, cogent argument. Thanks to Patrick Henry for taking the time.
No doubt it will prove very instructive and will end the debate here.
Evolution is amazing, I wonder who invented it?
In the SBR already?
In her latest book, "Goodless...," she devotes considerable space to evolution and takes the typical creationist positions. She denies that there is any supporting fossile evidence for evolution, she posits a new earth creation story with mankind suddenly arriving on the planet, fully elaborated as is mankind today, she presumes that evolutionists are all evil liberals who resort to deceit and fraud to pander their viewpoint. In short, she uses all the arguments put forth by those who do not have the slightest knowledge and understanding of evolution but will fight it simply because they don't like it.
I was being kind. Actually I was a fan of Coulter until she launched herself into the abyss of ignorance and willful misunderstanding concerning evolution.
It is sufficient reward that the Grand Master allows me to serve him in the humble capacity of spokesman.
I posted it here. It's not a news article, so this seemed appropriate.
Besides, "mutations" aren't currently fashionable as a cause of change ~ in fact, they rarely occur. What does happen is DNA methylation, additions, deletions and changes in order of occurrence particular genes.
Besides, not all of our genes were acquired through the act of reproduction. The Human Genome Project demonstrated conclusively we have exogenously acquired viral genes.
You sound like this guy that stands on the street corner slapping a bible and screaming at everyone walking by, calling them sinners. In love with his own faux-piety and self-rightousness. He cares not that most of the people walking by are doing their best not to make eye-contact and think of him as a nut.
You two should get together.
And I'd heard that you'd stopped drinking before noon!
Gotcha. I thought perhaps "Everybody be nice" was now being interpreted as an atheistic slam on...certain posters of a religious bent.
Could be, but the key feature is reproductive isolation from the main population. The climate of the various Galapagos Islands does not differ much. They are not subject to differential catastrophes. And yet the populations of similar creatures have diverged.
I must give credit to several who assisted with numerous edits and suggestions. SeaLion wrote the introductory paragraph. He, along with CoyoteMan, kingprout, js1138, VadeRetro, JennyP, Doctor Stochastic, Ichneumon, furball4paws, b_sharp, and probably some others I missed, all added valuable input. Many thanks. But any errors are mine.
I haven't read her new book. I have frequently found her arguments facile. She has always seemed much more about surface than substance, shouting than conversing, and this would seem to confirm my suspicions.
Pathetic, if that's the best we can do for our representation. Just gives the lefties more ammo, when television conservatives are so loony.
Generally when we discuss 'mutations' we include anything that can happen during meiosis including indels, transposons, simple replications, polyploidy and reversals as well as such things as ERVs. There is no effective difference in one change in the genome from another as far as evolution is concerned. All that is important is that there is a source of variation in available alleles.
I'm not sure why anyone would reverse the recent trend of inclusion and narrow the range of genomic changes to single nucleotides. Is there some advantage to creationists in divorcing 'mutations' from all the multi-nucleotide changes which occur?
Yeah, I was pretty astonished at chapters 8-10. It was like she went to TalkOrigins and used pretty much every claim save YEC claims of young earth, etc, in the "List of Creationist Claims."
I'm telling you; it was an astonishing display of recycled arguments.
Well written and well reasoned.
Of course, you could invent a time machine, drag the luddites back in time and show them, replete with charts and graphs and 8 by 10 glossies with circles and arows on the back, and they'd still refuse to understand.
Of course we are instructed to be kind to those whose faith is so weak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.