Evolution in Five Easy Steps

Vanity | 21 August 2006 | PatrickHenry (vanity)

[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:

Introduction to Evolution in five easy steps
(It's far more complicated than this, but you must start somewhere.)
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

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.

[King Prout]

This turned out very well. Kudos! No doubt it will prove very instructive and will end the debate here.

ouch! what was that that just smote me across the retinas? was that... could it have been... SARCASM?

[VadeRetro]

I've been waiting years for the strawman army to stop marching. The problem goes beyond education, perhaps.

[PatrickHenry]

More sites from which to block images.

[JCEccles]

Evolution in five easy steps ~ How to be a millionaire and never pay taxes.

First, get a million dollars.

Funny stuff, PH. Not nearly as funny as the Steve Martin routine but funny nevertheless.

[TheRobb7]

"Evolution in Five Easy Steps"

Creationism in One Easy Step:
"In the beginning God create the heaven and the earth."

I'm not dissing anyone. That's just what I believe.

Have a great day!

[onja]

I applaud you at how simple this explanation is. I'm a high-schooler and a creationist and I still understood it :)

But one thing seems left out. I already knew about the gradual processes, reproduction, etc. But to me, one of my big questions is: How do we know they actually do change the creatures and is a testable example of bodies changing in an irreversible way? Yes, it theoretically works, but I don't know of any evidence showing that there is such change. Not trying to debate and I'll gladly accept explanations. Just curious.

BTW-I'll probably be getting a lot of this now. I used to live in Tennessee but moved to Arizona and am now going to a university high school. Really intense, and most people are flaming liberals, democrats, and evolutionists. And, probably, there'll be a number more intelligent than me.

[PatrickHenry]

But to me, one of my big questions is: How do we know they actually do change the creatures and is a testable example of bodies changing in an irreversible way? Yes, it theoretically works, but I don't know of any evidence showing that there is such change.

I'm not clear on what you're asking. A creature is the product of his genetic inheritance. He doesn't change; he is what his genes determine he will be. As for this being irreversible, again, I'm not sure what you're asking. You can't turn yourself back into being your grandfather. You aren't a perfect copy of him. You are irreversibly you.

[AndrewC]

I might point out that there could be alleles other than first generation mutations that are unique to an individual.

Those are the ones miracled into the individual?

[tortoise]

Statitical probabilities, although highly useful for anticipating behavior of large scale systems, do not, in and of themselves, CAUSE change.

Statistical probabilities are a cheap description of the cause, and far more economical for most purposes if the additional detail is unnecessary.

[AndrewC]

He doesn't change; he is what his genes determine he will be.

Bluehead wrasses have long, semi-cylindrical or cigar-shaped bodies. Their scales are round and flat. They have a pointed snout, and the mouth contains teeth. Their size and color, however, depend on whether they are terminal phase males, initial phase males, or females. Terminal phase (TP) males, also known as "supermales," have blue heads and green bodies. Three stripes (black, white, and black again) divide the colors of the head and body. Terminal phase males measure about 70 to 80 mm in length while initial phase males are approximately 60 mm. Initial phase (IP) females and males are colored in two different ways. One type has a yellow upper half of the body followed by a slight green/black area and then a white lower half. Females and initial phase males are also known to be white both above and below the dark area. This type of coloration is found in fish that primarily inhabit inshore regions. A dark spot is found on the anterior dorsal fin of both types of females and initial phase males. It should also be noted that females and initial phase males have the ability to change into terminal phase males and this switch includes a change of size and coloration. In addition, once there is a transformation from female or initial phase male to terminal phase male, the change is permanent. (Agbayani, 2003; East Carolina University, 2001; Warner and Swearer, 1991)

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Thalassoma_bifasciatum.html

[tortoise]

And next time, I'm going to insist on being reseated if I get stuck on the archaeologists' table, those folks don't know their limits!

But at least they had limits. I know you saw what the bio gang was up to and I pray, for their sake, no one took pictures. I still get a laugh just thinking about it...

[Creationist]

Commentary: From our point of view, the filter (nature's evolution algorithm) can result in an enormous amount of waste.

Like this post

[muawiyah]

Sometimes, in the absence of demonstrable causality, statistical methods show little more than correlations that we don't understand.

[Thalos]

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?

Isn't it obvious? If they can obfuscate the topic, they can convince people who don't know better that they know what they are talking about, giving them a chance to "disprove" evolution.

[dread78645]

"2nd Law of Thermal Documents" placemark

[ToryHeartland]

I know you saw what the bio gang was up to and I pray, for their sake, no one took pictures. I still get a laugh just thinking about it...

I didn't quite see how it all started. I think it was the Italian primatologist (can't remember her name; she's a prof at Cambridge) who started it all with her bonobo impersonations.

[DungeonMaster]

I'm a lizard and I have this little flap of skin in my arm pits that may one day be wings. My lizard parents don't have it and it isn't hurting anything nor getting my lizard ars kicked on the playground so I'm OK. Wow, I'm 0.0000000001 percent of the way to evolving to a bird.

[Coyoteman]

I'm going to insist on being reseated if I get stuck on the archaeologists' table, those folks don't know their limits!

Jealous?

[onja]

What I was asking was; How do we know the genetic differences in individuals will change the DNA of apes into the DNA of humans given enough time?

[onja]

Yes, so animals can "metamorphasize" into a different type. Kinda like how the male/female fish can switch genders. But is there any proof that, given enough time, the small diferences in genetics can change the animals' DNA enough to form different species/families? I understand that it would make sense to assume that any change would only be increased over time, but is there any proof? As far as I know, there may be some amount of change that can happen, but not more than _____.

Again, I'm a student trying to learn and please excuse me if this is stupid or badly phrased.