Why evolution is true

[torridon]

Bad, bad, bad...

Not a good idea is it  to use qualified because they are man made qualification based on a lot of suppositions and maybes. Theories which cannot all be proved and the teachings of man thus so far.

So if you fall ill, you avoid going to see the doctor, since they have 'man made' qualifications  ?

Really ?

Somehow, I don't believe you Sassy. Start being honest.

[Stranger]

Not a good idea is it  to use qualified because they are man made qualification based on a lot of suppositions and maybes. Theories which cannot all be proved and the teachings of man thus so far.
Man is arrogant and many just follow what they choose to believe like the emperors new clothes afraid to look stupid.

It's you who brought up qualification, Sassy: "Men of greater knowledge and qualifications than you do not agree Shaker." (#400)

Evolution if it existed would have new species abounding everyday.

No we wouldn't expect them everyday, but we do observe them, see for example:
Observed Instances of Speciation
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur

It never happened because it does not happen now. We have no proof and never had that species evolved into better species and survived. Look at today, without the mod cons of electricity, Gas, housing and water where would be?

You really don't understand the first thing about the Theory of Evolution, do you?

Then there is still the question of baby or man first. We all know if babies were first no humans would exist. So the reality is as always. Adults in all species has to have come first.  Nothing and I mean nothing would have been here today had it not been so. There is more logical evidence when it comes man thinking for himself in that than anything. When we start here we know scientist do not have the answers we really need.

Baby or adult first - are you actually serious?

Evolution is gradual. Imagine you had photos of a person, taken every day of their life, you would never see much difference between each one and the next one, but over (say) 90 years worth, you'd see a baby turn into and old person. Similarly, if you took each generation, starting with modern humans, back about 6-8 million years, you'd get to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees but, along the way, none of the children would be much different from their parents.

Here's a hint: if you want to criticise something it's best you take the trouble to at least find out the basics about it first. It saves you from making a fool of yourself...

[Stranger]

Survival of the fittest?  There is no evidence of natural selection.

There is, actually; you are bearing false witness. Even most creationists aren't stupid or dishonest enough to deny natural selection.

The good old Peppered Moth is the classic example (see: Peppered moth evolution). This has more recently been traced to a particular (beneficial in the environment of the time) mutation that probably happened around 1819: Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed.

[Enki]

Enki, not questioning the method nor your ability to absorb. Evidence can be circumstantial or positive proof. But in the case of science it is mainly for theory just circumstantial.  Reading and knowing only what you are told about science is not the same as the ability to do everything personally and prove it correct.  God heals people and God does what he says he will. Things come to pass as he foretold. Now the evidence you can't find is the evidence you want only to prove to yourself if a God. When the evidence should be what God does which shows he is real because you want to find who God is and believe. Sometimes the reason for knowing something can be very different for individuals. I have seen God heal so I cannot deny God exists and have proof which for me is the only type which really counts.

Sassy,

Science involves observing and measuring things and attempting to produce coherent theories which attempt to explain the workings of the natural world. As more facts become available, theories can be altered or discarded as is appropriate in the light of any new evidence. At no point is anything regarded as ultimate 'proof'. This is one of the strengths of science, and encourages the objectivity that science relies on. In this way, science has much more chance of revealing truths about the natural world than any purely subjective approach. Of course there is much more to scientific methodology than this,(e.g. testing, forecasting, peer review) and I suggest that  science has been shown to be eminently successful by using this approach.

I don't simply read or accept what I am told, Sassy. I employ my critical faculties to assess any scientific information, and make my judgments on the basis of credibility. That is one reason why, for instance, I think that we don't live on a flat earth or that the sun does not revolve around the earth.

As far as your 'God' is concerned, I have no belief in it at all. As it is a supernatural proposition, science has little to say about it. However when one makes statements like 'God heals people' then I have to beg to differ. There is no evidence that it heals people. There is evidence that having some sort of faith can have a placebo effect however.

Now the evidence you can't find is the evidence you want only to prove to yourself if a God. When the evidence should be what God does which shows he is real because you want to find who God is and believe. Sometimes the reason for knowing something can be very different for individuals.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, as it seems rather confused. I can only say that I find no evidence that any god does anything. As far as personal experience goes, I have had no occasion to believe that there is a god. I'm quite happy if others believe in their particular gods. That's up to them. If you think that you have seen your particular god heal, then carry on believing in it. For me. I see no such evidence, only anecdote, which doesn't carry much weight in science.

I have seen God heal so I cannot deny God exists and have proof which for me is the only type which really counts.

Fine. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't ask me to agree with your sentiments, because I don't.

Now back to the actual topic under discussion hopefully.

[Harrowby Hall]

Survival of the fittest?  There is no evidence of natural selection. There is evidence that when people started eating properly and their bodies received nutrition they survived and as today proves with medical treatment are living longer. But their is not evidence man changed naturally and suddenly better able to survive.

We know life is really about many things.. We see the different types of sickness and illness. Life is general people better equipped to live and survive longer. But survival is about is having enough to eat and drink so live in the right shelter. We did not get fitter by the body adapting... we got fitter by eating and drinking the right food.

Sassy, you've got it wrong again. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the most healthy. It has never meant survival of the most healthy. It has nothing to do with sickness and health.

The expression was coined by Herbert Spencer and it refers to the individuals who are most successful in producing surviving offspring.

I recall hearing of an example involving worms and cyanide (I think possibly in Devon). Some land was contaminated with cyanide which is poisonous to many species - including earthworms. Some decades later, the land was inspected and was found to still be contaminated. However it contained a large number of active earthworms. They were descended from a small number of worms - possibly only one - whose genome included a mutation which provided immunity from the poisonous effects of cyanide. Those worms - or that worm -  had been the fittest in that colony.

Perhaps "survival of the most fitted to survive" expresses the intention better.

[Spud]

There is, actually; you are bearing false witness. Even most creationists aren't stupid or dishonest enough to deny natural selection.

The good old Peppered Moth is the classic example (see: Peppered moth evolution). This has more recently been traced to a particular (beneficial in the environment of the time) mutation that probably happened around 1819: Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed.

Love the pun. But please note the distinction between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection certainly happened and enabled the moth to survive (in a darkened form) in industrial areas. But the mutation that led to the dark form would reduce the moth's survival chances in its natural habitat, clean woods and trees. It appears to be a degradation of genetic information, so therefore the title "Peppered moth evolution" is incorrect.

[Gordon]

Love the pun. But please note the distinction between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection certainly happened and enabled the moth to survive (in a darkened form) in industrial areas. But the mutation that led to the dark form would reduce the moth's survival chances in its natural habitat, clean woods and trees. It appears to be a degradation of genetic information, so therefore the title "Peppered moth evolution" is incorrect.

Since when is natural selection a separate thing from the TofE?

[Stranger]

But please note the distinction between natural selection and evolution.

I know the distinction but, from what follows, it doesn't look as if you do.

Natural selection certainly happened and enabled the moth to survive (in a darkened form) in industrial areas. But the mutation that led to the dark form would reduce the moth's survival chances in its natural habitat, clean woods and trees.

Natural selection always acts to make populations better suited to the environment they are in - that's why I added the comment "(beneficial in the environment of the time)". There is no evolutionary concept of a "natural habitat" and your comment about it couldn't be less relevant.

It appears to be a degradation of genetic information...

So, how are you measuring this "degradation of genetic information"?

Here is more information: Jumping gene turned peppered moths the color of soot and the actual paper here (pdf): The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element.

...so therefore the title "Peppered moth evolution" is incorrect.

Drivel. Even if you manage to define and demonstrate a "degradation of genetic information", that does not mean that it isn't evolution. Evolution isn't confined to making things more complex or adding information, it can go in any direction, depending on the environment and what variations become available to natural selection.

[BeRational]

Sassy, you've got it wrong again. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the most healthy. It has never meant survival of the most healthy. It has nothing to do with sickness and health.

The expression was coined by Herbert Spencer and it refers to the individuals who are most successful in producing surviving offspring.

I recall hearing of an example involving worms and cyanide (I think possibly in Devon). Some land was contaminated with cyanide which is poisonous to many species - including earthworms. Some decades later, the land was inspected and was found to still be contaminated. However it contained a large number of active earthworms. They were descended from a small number of worms - possibly only one - whose genome included a mutation which provided immunity from the poisonous effects of cyanide. Those worms - or that worm -  had been the fittest in that colony.

Perhaps "survival of the most fitted to survive" expresses the intention better.

I agree. Most fitted to survive long enough to have offspring in the environment.

[Enki]

Love the pun. But please note the distinction between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection certainly happened and enabled the moth to survive (in a darkened form) in industrial areas. But the mutation that led to the dark form would reduce the moth's survival chances in its natural habitat, clean woods and trees. It appears to be a degradation of genetic information, so therefore the title "Peppered moth evolution" is incorrect.

You are quite right, there is a distinction between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection is the main driving force behind evolution and the peppered moths are an excellent example of this whole process. Of course the mutation that led to the melanistic form would reduce the non melanistic moth's survival in the industrial habitat, just as when the environment became cleaner or less industialised, the melanistic form's survival was reduced. That's how natural selection works, Spud. A Mutation isn't necessarily a degradation of information. Indeed, the mutation event in this case has been explained as an insertion event in the gene cortex.

Whether you like it or not, the peppered moth is an excellent recent example of evolution in action. The article in Wiki is not incorrect.

It's also worth looking at this fairly recent article in 'Nature'

https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110414/full/news.2011.238.html

I'll go by those who have researched the subject, Spud, rather than take notice of your assertions.

[Spud]

I know the distinction but, from what follows, it doesn't look as if you do.

Natural selection always acts to make populations better suited to the environment they are in - that's why I added the comment "(beneficial in the environment of the time)". There is no evolutionary concept of a "natural habitat" and your comment about it couldn't be less relevant.

So, how are you measuring this "degradation of genetic information"?

Here is more information: Jumping gene turned peppered moths the color of soot and the actual paper here (pdf): The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element.

Drivel. Even if you manage to define and demonstrate a "degradation of genetic information", that does not mean that it isn't evolution. Evolution isn't confined to making things more complex or adding information, it can go in any direction, depending on the environment and what variations become available to natural selection.

Great, so by your definition evolution can go in any direction. We are primarily concerned here with evolution that makes something more complex, the sort of evolution that created scales on moths' wings, or the wing itself. Changing the colour of the scales in the peppered moth means that the ability to make some scales white and some black is lost- they are all black: looks like a decrease in complexity. I suspect all changes due to mutation are like this

[Enki]

Great, so by your definition evolution can go in any direction. We are primarily concerned here with evolution that makes something more complex, the sort of evolution that created scales on moths' wings, or the wing itself. Changing the colour of the scales in the peppered moth means that the ability to make some scales white and some black is lost- they are all black: looks like a decrease in complexity. I suspect all changes due to mutation are like this

Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations. Hence if you are going to suggest that a mutation must lead to a decrease in complexity(which I don't accept), then its reversal must logically lead to an increase in complexity. In which case your statement that you suspect that all mutation changes lead to a decrease in complexity must be wrong.

Actually one of the ways in which new genes evolve is by an existing gene being copied. Then each copy is able to mutate in different directions.

[Dicky Underpants]

Since when is natural selection a separate thing from the TofE?

Well, not in the way Spud would like to have it. Evolution by Natural Selection has become the standard theory for a long time (and as far as I'm concerned, the only true one).
However, there have been others in the past: Evolution via the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics (Lamarck); Evolution via 'Life Force' (Bergson, Hans Driesch, and maybe Koestler). Even "Evolution via Extraterrestrial Intervention" (less said about that the better )

[Stranger]

Great, so by your definition evolution can go in any direction.

It's not my definition, Spud. It's something you would know if you'd read anything much about the subject (apart from creationist misinformation and lies).

We are primarily concerned here with evolution that makes something more complex, the sort of evolution that created scales on moths' wings, or the wing itself.

Who's this 'we'? I brought up the peppered moth (#452), as a classic example, because Sassy said there there was no evidence of natural selection.

Changing the colour of the scales in the peppered moth means that the ability to make some scales white and some black is lost- they are all black: looks like a decrease in complexity.

So (to answer the question I put to you) you measure "genetic information" by your subjective assessment of the phenotype?

I suspect all changes due to mutation are like this

-sigh-

Do try to think about this. Mutations are random. There is nothing that directs it to be useful or not useful, to add 'complexity' (however you want to define it) or remove it. Natural selection is how those mutations that are useful (make individuals better able to produce offspring in the environment) spread through the population. It would be amazing if mutations always reduced 'complexity' and we'd have to be asking why.

See: Claim CB102.

A particularly nice example is the evolution of tricolour vision in primates, which happened through gene duplication and subsequent mutation. See: The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication and also The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll.

[SteveH]

This bollocks about mutations being unable to add information is parrotted by creationists, most with no scientific training, regularly. As the link says, they never define "information".

[Spud]

It's not my definition, Spud. It's something you would know if you'd read anything much about the subject (apart from creationist misinformation and lies).

Who's this 'we'? I brought up the peppered moth (#452), as a classic example, because Sassy said there there was no evidence of natural selection.

So (to answer the question I put to you) you measure "genetic information" by your subjective assessment of the phenotype?

-sigh-

Do try to think about this. Mutations are random. There is nothing that directs it to be useful or not useful, to add 'complexity' (however you want to define it) or remove it. Natural selection is how those mutations that are useful (make individuals better able to produce offspring in the environment) spread through the population. It would be amazing if mutations always reduced 'complexity' and we'd have to be asking why.

See: Claim CB102.

A particularly nice example is the evolution of tricolour vision in primates, which happened through gene duplication and subsequent mutation. See: The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication and also The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll.

Holy cycle clips Stranger, I'm not sure what's worse, evolution of trichromatic vision or intermediate period pharaohs. Give me a few days to read that one.

[Stranger]

Holy cycle clips Stranger, I'm not sure what's worse, evolution of trichromatic vision or intermediate period pharaohs. Give me a few days to read that one.

Fine but you really should read a decent (non-creationist) book on the basics. Thinking that evolution only works in one direction is indicative of fundamental misunderstanding.

On information increase/decrease - the simple argument in enki's post #461 should be enough.

[Spud]

Fine but you really should read a decent (non-creationist) book on the basics. Thinking that evolution only works in one direction is indicative of fundamental misunderstanding.

On information increase/decrease - the simple argument in enki's post #461 should be enough.

I've read the abstract and get the gist of what it's saying. I'd need  week or two to read the whole paper. Don't worry, there are no creationist articles on trichromacy, just a few passing comments. So my view will be based on reading the article.

[Spud]

It's not my definition, Spud. It's something you would know if you'd read anything much about the subject (apart from creationist misinformation and lies).

The definition of 'evolve' is "to develop gradually, or to cause something or someone to develop gradually". The definition of 'develop' is "to (cause something to) grow or change into a more advanced, larger, or stronger form".
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/develop
The creationist websites are simply following this definition.

Who's this 'we'?

Those of us discussing why evolution is or isn't true. Everyone agrees that adaptation through mutation etc happens, but is this evolution according to the definition given above?

I brought up the peppered moth (#452), as a classic example, because Sassy said there there was no evidence of natural selection.

Yes, but I thought evolution meant becoming more advanced, as in the Cambridge dictionary definition, so I questioned the Wikipedia title "evolution of the peppered moth".

So (to answer the question I put to you) you measure "genetic information" by your subjective assessment of the phenotype?

-sigh-

Your sciencenews.org article says the researchers speculated that the mutation caused the wing scales to develop more slowly, giving them enough time to become black. You could say that there is increased genetic information, but the black offspring are less adaptable.

Do try to think about this. Mutations are random. There is nothing that directs it to be useful or not useful, to add 'complexity' (however you want to define it) or remove it. Natural selection is how those mutations that are useful (make individuals better able to produce offspring in the environment) spread through the population. It would be amazing if mutations always reduced 'complexity' and we'd have to be asking why.

See: Claim CB102.

A particularly nice example is the evolution of tricolour vision in primates, which happened through gene duplication and subsequent mutation. See: The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication

This appears to be hypothesis that certain genetic mutations have taken place in the distant past. From what I read of observed instances of speciation, mutation always leads to a decreased ability of the offspring to adapt. For example, blind cave fish lose their eyes; swallows nesting on motorway bridges "evolve" shorter wings which enable a more vertical take-off for avoiding cars, but may affect their ability to migrate long distances.

and also The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll.

Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations.

Any examples? Are you sure this can happen without human intervention?

[jeremyp]

Yes, but I thought evolution meant becoming more advanced,

That depends on what you mean by more advanced. If you mean "more complex" you are definitely wrong. If you mean "better suited to the the environment in respect of being able to reproduce" you might have a point.

There are plenty of examples of evolution taking organisms in a less complex direction in order to be more suited to reproducing in their environment.

[Stranger]

The definition of 'evolve' is "to develop gradually, or to cause something or someone to develop gradually". The definition of 'develop' is "to (cause something to) grow or change into a more advanced, larger, or stronger form".
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/develop
The creationist websites are simply following this definition.

That will be because they are being dishonest or simply clueless. We are talking about the term 'evolution' in the context of a specific scientific theory, not how the word 'evolve' is used generally. This is why I said you should get a general introduction. You (and the creationists) are simply wrong about this, and if you read any basic (non-creationist) text on the subject this should become clear. Evolutionary change always makes a population better able to reproduce in its environment, whether that means more complex or less.

From wiki:

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." [my emphasis]

"A common misconception is that evolution has goals, long-term plans, or an innate tendency for "progress", as expressed in beliefs such as orthogenesis and evolutionism; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity."

Or from Evolution 101

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)."

Those of us discussing why evolution is or isn't true.

Evolution is one of the best established theories in the history of science. It is every bit as well established as the "theory" that matter is made of atoms. It's only (as I pointed out before) religious fundamentalists, the ignorant, and the deceived, that question it.

Seriously.

Everyone agrees that adaptation through mutation etc happens...

Sassy didn't agree that natural selection happened.

Your sciencenews.org article says the researchers speculated that the mutation caused the wing scales to develop more slowly, giving them enough time to become black. You could say that there is increased genetic information, but the black offspring are less adaptable.

Genetic information? Less adaptable? You keep on using these terms without saying what you mean or how you could measure them.
 

Any examples? Are you sure this can happen without human intervention?

Claim CB102.

Of course if a mutation can cause a change, it can cause the opposite change. How could it not? You do get that this is basically a digital code? If a random mutation can change (say) CTGGAG to CTGGGG, then a random mutation can make the reverse change.

The point is that if you insist that any mutation must decrease 'genetic information' and then and you observe CTGGAG to CTGGGG and call it a decrease, then any change from CTGGGG to CTGGAG must be an increase in information, but it is obviously just as likely.

[Stranger]

Evolution is one of the best established theories in the history of science. It is every bit as well established as the "theory" that matter is made of atoms. It's only (as I pointed out before) religious fundamentalists, the ignorant, and the deceived, that question it.

Seriously.

See: 'Why Evolution Is True' (talk by Jerry Coyne).

[Enki]

Spud,

Stranger has admirably covered answers to your responses, but just to add a little on the subject of mutations. The important thing about mutations is that they are not directed, but random.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/lederberg_01

If they are random, then whatever changed can be changed again as Stranger has explained. If a DNA base A can mutate to a G, then there is no reason that it cannot mutate back to an A.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0046817703004064?via%3Dihub

You might also find this article to be interesting:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

[Spud]

Thanks for these links. They are interesting, especially the one about hereditary tyrosinaemia. I still think that new variants have less ability to adapt than their ancestors, and so cannot become more complex as the ToE requires. For example if you put a population of negroid people in Scotland and do not allow them to have kids with white people, will their skin eventually turn white over many generations? Probably not. White and black people descended from something in-between, in whom there was the potential for white or black skin to develop.

[Sebastian Toe]

as the ToE requires.

What exactly does the TOE require?