"Dead Animals Don't Evolve"?

[Skeptic Ginger]

The ignorance about evolution theory is behind many many many YEC and ID arguments. And they just repeat the ignorance as if it is meaningful to the next fool and the next.

This argument in particular seems to totally negate the role random mutation and selection pressures which favor variation play in evolution.

For a rapidly reproducing organism, ongoing mutations occur. It is the accidental random mutation which then is able to adapt to the change in the environment.

For a more slowly reproducing organism, variation is selected for. A population with very little genetic diversity is susceptible to extinction when environmental stressors come along. A population with a lot of genetic diversity will have the adaptation waiting in the wings.

And the idea adaptations must be fully functional or else they do no good is simply false. We have all sorts of examples of "half of a wings" and the precursor to the flagella, the eye and the liver and so on to dispel these erroneous conclusions.


The way I've answered these smug little twits is to present them with pages of information on how the specific creature or organ they are using as an example actually evolved. In this case I'll need to look a bit. It seems to be the latest "flagella", "eye" or "wing" to be popularized by the desperate evolution deniers. It's like the fossil gaps, fill one and the IDers and Creationists will just claim now there are two gaps so there must be a god.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Talkorigins was attacked at the end of 2006. I'm not sure what's happened since then.

~~ Paul

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It appears a number of others have answered this challenge on other forums. Here are some links to start with:

Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board

Biological diversity, chemical mechanisms, and the evolutionary origins of bioluminescent systems (Abstract only, fee for whole article)

THE EVOLUTION OF BIOLUMINESCENCE IN CANTHAROIDS
(COLEOPTERA: ELATEROIDEA)

TOL discusson: Angler Fishes

TOL discussion: Seadevils, Devilfishes, Deep-sea Anglerfishes

 

[arthwollipot]

I guess nested quotes don't work here.

Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.

Seems like someone other than you is being dogmatic. I'd be inclined to go with the "You have been misinformed and lied to. How does that make you feel?" approach, and see if that works. Otherwise I'd take my most reasonable tone and start talking to the audience, saying things like "Of course, what she is saying is rubbish, and she's not interested in learning. Hopefully there are some people reading this who are interested in finding out what evolution is really all about, rather than what some dogmatic preacher keeps on screaming from the pulipt. Actual scientists have determined that..."

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Surely the answer is -- "But living things reproduce."

 

[jasonpatterson]

I guess nested quotes don't work here.

They ought to...

Hrm...

Yeah, they do, the quote button just doesn't include the original passage. If you want to include that text as well, you can pull from multiple messages using the " button. It works across multiple pages of a thread as well. You need nested QUOTE tags to get it to do this though.

Is talkorigins still maintained? All of the copyrights/updates seem to date back to 2006.

Creationist arguments haven't been updated since about 26 or so though, so I'd say we're staying ahead.

 

[skip]

I just won't let any of her attacks on evolution theory stand until she shows some understanding of what it actually says.

I do it for the children. :^)

When I tried to explain evolution to my Daughter when she was a youngster, this is what I did… I took a page from a coloring book and had her put a piece of paper on top and trace the picture. Then without removing the first, had her place another piece on top and again trace it. We did this again and again without removing any of the papers. After we had a good stack we compared the first with the last… There was quite the difference… each paper is one generation. Go through all the papers and you can see the small little changes that made the last picture look like it did. It’s a bit simplistic but for a young child is seemed to work.

 

[Madalch]

When I tried to explain evolution to my Daughter when she was a youngster, this is what I did… I took a page from a coloring book and had her put a piece of paper on top and trace the picture. Then without removing the first, had her place another piece on top and again trace it. We did this again and again without removing any of the papers. After we had a good stack we compared the first with the last… There was quite the difference… each paper is one generation. Go through all the papers and you can see the small little changes that made the last picture look like it did. It’s a bit simplistic but for a young child is seemed to work.

It's still too complicated a demonstration for Ray Comfort.

 

[The Drain]

When I tried to explain evolution to my Daughter … .

I like that idea, Skip. I'm going to use it with mine. Thanks.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Dead animals cause evolution by leaving others behind that survived whatever that killed those that didn't live. If they die before they reproduce, then there is usually some selective factor going on. Dead animals once lived, and if there are some that did live to reproduce, they then did allow their offspring the chance to spread the genes that allowed for that species to survive up to the point of the dead animal. So, dead animals lived because their ancestors evolved, and they did contribute to evolution if they had offspring before they died. So, ask her if they had offspring or not. If not, then they contribute to others species evolving instead.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Dead animals cause evolution by leaving others behind that survived whatever that killed those that didn't live. If they die before they reproduce, then there is usually some selective factor going on. Dead animals once lived, and if there are some that did live to reproduce, they then did allow their offspring the chance to spread the genes that allowed for that species to survive up to the point of the dead animal. So, dead animals lived because their ancestors evolved, and they did contribute to evolution if they had offspring before they died. So, ask her if they had offspring or not. If not, then they contribute to others species evolving instead.

The explanation for traits like aposematism isn't so simple, though.

I think it relies on the fact that near relatives share enough genes so that even if the trait (chemical defense and warning coloration) only work if the predator eats you, it's a safe bet that your siblings who survived share that gene.

This is similar to the way the evolution of altruism is ordinarily explained. (And it's not easy to grasp, especially for someone who gets her science from the pulpit. It requires thinking of the selfish gene rather than the selfish organism.)

At any rate, I suspect it's stuff like this that inspired the "Dead animals don't evolve" thing.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I guess nested quotes don't work here.

Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.

And here's what it will look like. Start with this:
[QUOTE="John Jones, post: 5269108, member: 31746"]I guess nested quotes don't work here.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="arthwollipot, post: 5269548, member: 4332"]Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.[/QUOTE]

Snip the quote after the first quote (and subsequent nested posts) and add it (them) to the end.
[QUOTE="John Jones, post: 5269108, member: 31746"]I guess nested quotes don't work here.[QUOTE="arthwollipot, post: 5269548, member: 4332"]Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.[/QUOTE][/quote]

And....

I guess nested quotes don't work here.

Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.

Ta Da!

OK. I haven't used that one in a while. That usually shuts the pure Luddites right up.

I didn't mean to turn this into an attack on an unnamed adversary on an unnamed forum.

I just wanted to research the claim in the title: "Dead Animals Don't Evolve"

It doesn't actually mean anything. C/IDers tend to come up with insipid axoimatic platitudes that they think are profoundly wise and meaningful. The thing is they don't actually say anything for convey any actual infomation. My advice is just ingore it as the mental flatus that it is.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The explanation for traits like aposematism isn't so simple, though.

I think it relies on the fact that near relatives share enough genes so that even if the trait (chemical defense and warning coloration) only work if the predator eats you, it's a safe bet that your siblings who survived share that gene.

This is similar to the way the evolution of altruism is ordinarily explained. (And it's not easy to grasp, especially for someone who gets her science from the pulpit. It requires thinking of the selfish gene rather than the selfish organism.)

At any rate, I suspect it's stuff like this that inspired the "Dead animals don't evolve" thing.

A. If you don't keep it simple, they won't get it at all.
B. The whole basis of evolution is traits that survive and change over time through living animals.
C. I also addressed how dead animals (ones with traits that may not have made them as quick as, or as smart as, or the same color as, etc.) can drive evolution.
If nothing died, taking traits with them that don't work as well as others for that situation that killed them (minus old age, etc.), then there would be no evolution.

I think you just didn't get most of what I was writing, as it was not just about aposematism.

So yeah, while their siblings may have most of the traits that their dead counterpart did, there may be that one thing in them that their dead sibling didn't have, or in that situation they would be dead too, leaving behind less close relatives that are likely more different.

Dead animals drive evolution.

 

[Cainkane1]

In an indirect sort of way a dead animal that hasn't reproduced has contributed to the evolutionary process simply by not adding its genes to the pool.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

In an indirect sort of way a dead animal that hasn't reproduced has contributed to the evolutionary process simply by not adding its genes to the pool.

You say that so informatively in so few words And yes, exactly. There could be factors that killed it because it didn't have whatever traits it needed to survive to reproduce. Whether that is getting eaten, or getting sick, or whatever.

If we all got HIV, some people have natural ways of thwarting it. Some have mutations that won't allow the virus to dock on their T-Cells. Others are able to live with the virus and not get sick. The rest of us would die, and any of their children not born with these genes to allow them to survive would die. Then the next selective pressure may select for other genes that cause an even bigger change in the population. Then, a million years later, humanity would even look different and not be able to reproduce with models that exist now as they are, who may or may not survive to have some around a million years from now, etc.

But luckily for us, we have another thing going for all of us, the ability to detect and then try to avoid the virus. This intelligence along with some people who can't get affected by HIV, keeps many many of us alive. Just some who don't change their behavior will still get it. So a bunch of us can still get infected by HIV just don't. So, for us, the dead don't really contribute to our evolution that much, but in some other cases they can.

Of course, there are things like bottle neck effects, getting isolated, etc. But even then selective pressures will kill some before they reproduce but not others.

There are many things that drive evolution, but death in those that haven't reproduced yet (couldn't thwart whatever killed them because they weren't fast enough or big enough or small enough or didn't have a mutation that saved them from a dread disease, etc.) will always be a factor in populations as a whole. There are millions of things that make something what it is, and not every living thing in a species are exactly alike. Just having a weird T-cell can cause one individual to survive what another with the same kind of T-cell as the majority (not weird) can't. All those with the non weird T-cell can die and leave the werid T-celled indiviuduals as the only ones left standing. Dying takes that vulnerable T-cell out of the factor, driving the evolution of a species on a different path. If HIV had never showed up, then it wouldn't matter, and no deaths stalls the evolution in that direction.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

So, individuals don't ever "evolve" anyways, so no kidding that dead animals don't evolve. But dead animals will drive evolution.

Fair enough?

 

[TheDaver]

Try pointing out to her that her argument is completely off the mark, in terms she can understand: e.g. “That’s like me arguing about how Moses couldn’t fit a dozen of every animal on the ark…”

 

[Dr Adequate]

Try ending each of your posts with the words "Every biologist in the world knows that dead animals don't evolve. In fact, they know even more about biology than you do, because they're biologists and you aren't."

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

When I've heard the 'dead animals don't evolve' statement, it's been used as an attack on the process of mutation as an agent of gradual change. The argument goes something like this.

Mutations large enough to cause any change are always immediatly fatal

Mutations small enough to not be fatal are too small to cause any change

Therefore, it follows 'logically' that any animal that had a mutation capable of making it change would die immediately and not be able to pass that mutation on.

Thus, goddidit

Of course this can be refuted so many different ways. I don't think anyone in the creation science/ID moronosphere is still using the 'all mutations are fatal' argument, because they're so clearly not.

A

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Well yeah. Even mutations that may not be beneficial are socially or sexually selected for. Blue eyes aren't exactly better or worse than brown. And we have these things called thumbs that are kinda cool. When did they enter into the picture for mammals? They aren't harmful at all. And this walking upright thing is kinda weird for anyone but apes like us. So many mutations that aren't harmful, along with people who have a mutation on their T-cells that lock HIV out. Being naturally immune to HIV isn't exactly deadly.