Evolution (quick) Masterclass

[Christian Dude]

Hi guys. Still here in Orlando enjoying the nice weather. I’ve read all the post since yesterday. I want to clear up a couple of things if I can. Namely, my interest in the subject of evolution is genuine. It is plainly obvious to even a layman as my self that evolution happens to any form of life on our planet. Organisms change over time, I don’t argue against that in any way. When I read articles, books and journals by scientist that believe one species can evolve into another, I am still learning about what they can reproduce in a laboratory and/or are observing in nature. I am fascinated with these things even though I am not convinced that what can be observed is proof of macro evolution. (Did I use the right term?) Life does evolve and I personally believe we are watching God’s love of life and built-in mechanisms geared to keep life going in action. I just don’t believe on species evolved from another. Ok, I don’t need to go any further on that. I have learned not to preach here.

I do have an honest question about bias. Obviously I am biased toward creation, but I do not say every evolutionary scientist is a bad scientist or imply they are a bunch of blockhead atheists that can’t possible be very smart. I know they are very smart intelligent people that are trying to work out how things work in the universe. I may not be sure they interpret the facts correctly, but I completely respect them and their work. Tell me if I have miss interpreted what has been said in this thread about creation scientists. Basically, they are a bunch of blockhead creationist who are dumb or purposely distort the facts to their bias. I you believe that, why should I believe that evolutionary scientists are not distorting facts they discover when the fact may point the opposite direction to where they want to go. If we question the integrity of one group, why is the group on the opposite side’s integrity not in question as well? Ken Ham’s site has a list of about 200 scientists who believe in creation. Another site called creationinfo that I came across has about another 100 scientists listed who believe in creation. These are geneticists, biologists, astronomers and scientists from every field of science with educations from the best universities on the planet. I am supposed to think all these people are either idiots or purposefully distorting facts or both? It does not seem likely to me.

I am still reading the things you guys have turned me onto. Some very interesting stuff, thanks.

One thing I was wondering if you guys have heard about from the creationist camp. A which came first, the chicken or the egg scenario. I can’t remember the name of the enzyme, but it is the enzyme that reads DNA to pass along the instructions to other parts of a cell to manufacture molecules needed for metabolism and stuff, proteins other enzymes, things like that. The instructions to make the enzyme that reads DNA is in the DNA, so how could that be if they did not come about at the same time? Any how, Dr Adequate had mentioned just about every creationist argument other than that one. Or giraffes, what about giraffes, how could they have possibly evolved? Why don’t they just drop dead when they drink water?

I know, I know. I am not bringing anything with any well thought out detail or an indepth fact filled argument yet. To be honest, I am not sure I can in the near future. I purposefully limit the amount of time I read on this subject to leave time for other things that I have chosen as a greater priorities in my life. As I learn more and become better educated I hope I can be a interesting person to converse with on this subject to some of you. Thanks for taking the time to read my posts so far. Give me time to learn more please.

-Dude

 

[Dogdoctor]

Creation scientists aren't necessarily idiots and probably many aren't but they aren't real scientists either. They have the answer first without the data to support it and are trying to force the facts to fit in accordance with their beliefs. That is not how science works. One of the things that creationists and intelligent design advocates do is to ask science to immediately come up with all of the minute details of evolution which has occurred over millions of years. That is not a reasonable request. It took millions of years and most of the information we have comes from fossils which are few and far between. I ask them to produce the same data for how god or intelligent designers did whatever they did (each little chemical reaction and the laws of physics used to create them) We have much more information about evolution than they can produce about god or intelligent designers. The chicken and the egg thing is really just a question of terminology and not an important question. Do you call an egg that grows up to be a chicken a chicken egg or do you call an egg laid by a chicken a chicken egg? The giraffe question I am not sure what it is you are asking. Why would they drown from drinking water?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I do have an honest question about bias. Obviously I am biased toward creation, but I do not say every evolutionary scientist is a bad scientist or imply they are a bunch of blockhead atheists that can’t possible be very smart. I know they are very smart intelligent people that are trying to work out how things work in the universe. I may not be sure they interpret the facts correctly, but I completely respect them and their work. Tell me if I have miss interpreted what has been said in this thread about creation scientists. Basically, they are a bunch of blockhead creationist who are dumb or purposely distort the facts to their bias. I you believe that, why should I believe that evolutionary scientists are not distorting facts they discover when the fact may point the opposite direction to where they want to go. If we question the integrity of one group, why is the group on the opposite side’s integrity not in question as well?

I think you have taken that too far. I do not say that "creation scientists" are blockheads qua creation scientists.

I would just like to see one of them with a good argument.

The reason I say they are "blockheads" is not because they are creationists, but because all their arguments turn out to be rubbish when I look.

Ken Ham’s site has a list of about 200 scientists who believe in creation. Another site called creationinfo that I came across has about another 100 scientists listed who believe in creation. These are geneticists, biologists, astronomers and scientists from every field of science with educations from the best universities on the planet. I am supposed to think all these people are either idiots or purposefully distorting facts or both? It does not seem likely to me.

Given that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists, it does not seem remarkable to me that 200 might be wrong. Statistically, there should be a larger number of scientists who hear voices in their heads.

Could I refer you to the SkepticWiki article: [swiki]Evolution is losing support among scientists[/swiki]

One thing I was wondering if you guys have heard about from the creationist camp. A which came first, the chicken or the egg scenario.

The egg, since you ask.

I can’t remember the name of the enzyme, but it is the enzyme that reads DNA to pass along the instructions to other parts of a cell to manufacture molecules needed for metabolism and stuff, proteins other enzymes, things like that. The instructions to make the enzyme that reads DNA is in the DNA, so how could that be if they did not come about at the same time? Any how, Dr Adequate had mentioned just about every creationist argument other than that one.

But this is not precise. What is the problem? Why do you think there is no solution?

Or giraffes, what about giraffes, how could they have possibly evolved? Why don’t they just drop dead when they drink water?

[swiki]Neck of the Giraffe[/swiki]

Let me quote a little from that article:

It is rather depressing to think that nearly 150 years ago, Darwin gave the same answer to the same grotesque misunderstanding of his theory concerning the same animal, and that it is necessary to repeat it...

You could have found out all about the giraffe by reading the very first book about evolution, Darwin's Origin of Species.

Instead you say "Giraffes, what about giraffes?"

You could just have looked it up --- if you really wanted to know. But you didn't want an answer --- you wanted me not to have an answer.

I know, I know. I am not bringing anything with any well thought out detail or an indepth fact filled argument yet.

Would you briefly consider the fact that biologists do bring these things to the argument?

 

[strathmeyer]

Or giraffes, what about giraffes, how could they have possibly evolved? Why don’t they just drop dead when they drink water?

Uhhh... the ones who did drop dead didn't have as many children, so now all we have is giraffes that don't drop dead when the drink water. The biggest problem of the anti-evolution movement is they can't describe why or how evolution doesn't or shouldn't work.

 

[Christian Dude]

I’ve been spending a lot of time on Talk.Origins this week while I have been traveling. It is a place I can go to on the web and read material you guys respect, and have suggested to me, with out lugging around heavy books while I travel. I already lug around a heavy guitar.

I zeroed in on the topic of IC and Michael Behe since I have read Darwin’s Black Box. Dr Adequate mentioned that he has heard it all already in the ID camp about this topic, but I thought I would look into it further for my own knowledge as to how it is being refuted. Another thing I noticed that I had not really before about Talk.Origins, when spending time on the site previously, is that you find in the FAQs, and in many articles, is that Talk.Origins slams creation/ID scientist as either stupid blockheads that don’t know what good science is, or they are dishonest scientists that purposely have distorted facts.

Here is a direct quote from Talk.Origins found on this page: http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

“Q. Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be wrong?

A. The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number of well-known creationists have questionable credentials. Furthermore, many creationists have engaged in dishonest tactics like quoting out of context or making up references. See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ, the Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs, Quotations and Misquotations and Creationist Arguments: Misquotes”

I mean look at that. I no way does that quote give any respect at all to any scientist that disagrees with their point of view. In my opinion, part of the weight or quality of an argument does come from the credentials of the author. I am not saying all of it does, or even most of it does, but the credentials of the author are important to the validity, weight and quality of the argument. I am a layman and a Christian (two strikes against me), I get no respect because of that fact. I also have other issues with Talk.Origins, I believe they misrepresent the position of creation/ID arguments in many cases. Any how, back to specific thoughts on examples of evolution.

I was Reading Pete Dunkelburg’s article about IC and Behe’s definition of what IC is. Dunkelburg uses the Venus Fly Trap as one of his several examples. I think that the Fly Trap example is weak and not really what Behe is talking about. Then the how to eat Pentachlorophenol ,Hemoglobin and blood clotting examples are also not that interesting or strong in my lay opinion. The interesting example discussed is the swimming systems in microbes.

I can accept the plausibility that the flagella, and overall structure of a microbe might have evolved, but, in my layman’s point of view, I do not see any real evidence for microbes evolving into a higher life form. They seem to me to have been microbes from day one, and will still be microbes on the last day. Albeit more evolved microbes. You obviously don’t have to agree with me, but I do not see a strong argument here refuting the basic premise of IC. Maybe Behe’s definition was not detailed enough as to what he was trying to get at with the concept of irreducible complexity, and Dunkelburg can take Behe to task somewhat on that, but Dunkelburg only offers speculation as to how irreducible complexity might evolve. In the end, Dunkelburg’s article only offers a speculative argument against Behe’s concept of IC, and then he goes off on something I can take Dunkelburg to task on for his ignorance of mainstream religion, (especially Christianity) and his assertion that the disease microbes can cause must be attributed to, or implicate, the Designer (meaning God). Dunkelburg’s ignorance on religion shows here, but this is not a thread about Christian theology, and how disease fits in to that, so I won’t go any further here on this.

My main point on Dunkelburg’s article is that ultimately it offers no real facts about an organism evolving into a higher organism and only speculates how that could happen. All that can be strongly supported is microevolution, or if you will, adaptation or enhancement.

Now, to acknowledge that my previous statements made earlier in this thread about mutation always being a loss of information in DNA need to be retracted if I am to accept the possibility that microevolution and adaptation enhance or improve an organism. This would indeed be a gain in beneficial information in DNA if it is correct as far as I can tell. I apologize for the statements because I have found I may have believed contradictory positions.

Just so you know, I you probably already do, I am not prepared to accept macroevolution (I hope I am using this term correctly) or evolution of one life form into a higher life form in a step by step process over time no matter how rapid or slow. Acknowledging my layman’s position and lack of education and expertise in this area, I still do not see it to be a plausible reality. I can’t see microevolution continuing on forever in an individual organism because of negative mutation in an organism that is happening at the same time.

You guys missed my subtle, and probably weak attempted to bring up another chicken and egg scenario with the giraffe. The giraffe has valves in the blood vessels of its neck, and a sponge like organ at the base of its brain. When a giraffe lowers his head to drink water, the valves in its neck close so the gallons of blood contained in its neck don’t rush to its brain and basically blow it up thus killing it. Then when it lifts its head, the sponge like organ keeps blood in its brain so it doesn’t pass out from the blood rushing back down its neck. So the point is that how did this evolve? Did the giraffe evolve these organs and valves after it got a long neck? If so, how could it survive in the interim? Or are we to believe it evolved these organs first so it could then evolve a long neck. So the next point would be, it seems if it is the latter, intelligence would be behind that. It also was an attempt at subtle humor in relation to this thread.

Does anybody at all find my comments interesting? If not I can just shut up and go away if this just bugs everyone here. Thanks for reading this if you have. -Dude

 

[Dr Adequate]

The giraffe has valves in the blood vessels of its neck, and a sponge like organ at the base of its brain. When a giraffe lowers his head to drink water, the valves in its neck close so the gallons of blood contained in its neck don’t rush to its brain and basically blow it up thus killing it. Then when it lifts its head, the sponge like organ keeps blood in its brain so it doesn’t pass out from the blood rushing back down its neck. So the point is that how did this evolve? Did the giraffe evolve these organs and valves after it got a long neck? If so, how could it survive in the interim? Or are we to believe it evolved these organs first so it could then evolve a long neck.

I'm just going to bed, so I'll just deal with this one question for now.

I told you, dammit!

[swiki]Neck of the Giraffe[/swiki]

I told you. The "valves in its neck" --- we've all got them. The "sponge-like organ" --- you mean the rete mirabile, common to ungulates. "Are we to believe that it evolved these organs first"? --- no! Read the article!

I showed you the answers to these specific questions about giraffes before you asked them.

 

[GregC]

Thank you DrA, DrK, CD and all the others who have posted. I have believed in evolution since first being introduced to it in jr high school (catholic school). It was taught as science with no disclaimers. I have enjoyed reading and learning from the posts in the thread and hope that this thread will continue as an educational thread and not break down into another battlefield.

Christian Dude, stick around, you've asked some great questions. Not having a belief in God does not keep me from wanting to learn more about religions.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Interesting that he didn't mention the neck bones.

Giraffe's got a long neck, must have more cervical vertebrae, right? Wrong the giraffe have the same number of cervical vertebrae as other mammals, they're just huge.

 

[ohms]

You guys missed my subtle, and probably weak attempted to bring up another chicken and egg scenario with the giraffe. The giraffe has valves in the blood vessels of its neck, and a sponge like organ at the base of its brain. When a giraffe lowers his head to drink water, the valves in its neck close so the gallons of blood contained in its neck don’t rush to its brain and basically blow it up thus killing it. Then when it lifts its head, the sponge like organ keeps blood in its brain so it doesn’t pass out from the blood rushing back down its neck. So the point is that how did this evolve? Did the giraffe evolve these organs and valves after it got a long neck? If so, how could it survive in the interim? Or are we to believe it evolved these organs first so it could then evolve a long neck. So the next point would be, it seems if it is the latter, intelligence would be behind that. It also was an attempt at subtle humor in relation to this thread.

Why must the organs and valves have evolved before or after the neck? Could it not all have been part of the same process?

Edit to add:

Re Behe: If you want to see how poor his arguments are when examined, just read the Dover trial transcripts linked here.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now, to acknowledge that my previous statements made earlier in this thread about mutation always being a loss of information in DNA need to be retracted if I am to accept the possibility that microevolution and adaptation enhance or improve an organism. This would indeed be a gain in beneficial information in DNA if it is correct as far as I can tell. I apologize for the statements because I have found I may have believed contradictory positions.

You can watch information gain in DNA in this model of the evolution of DNA binding sites:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/papers/ev/evj/

It's quite interesting, if I do say so myself.

~~ Paul

 

[Dogdoctor]

Christian dude, In science just like in religion or in any other section of society there are big mouth jerks. Creationism and science have them both. If Creationist don't show respect for scientists does that say anything about Creationism? In science the facts speak for themselves and as long as you stick to ideas supported by the available data then they would be called scientists. Creationist want to know how evolution could have come up with a giraffe? How did god come up with a giraffe? If you look at the fossils and DNA and morphological data and behavioral data and just about all of the information that we have on species, it all points to evolution. The data speaks for itself. If you ask a scientist how god came up with a giraffe, their answer would have to be evolution.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

My main point on Dunkelburg’s article is that ultimately it offers no real facts about an organism evolving into a higher organism and only speculates how that could happen. All that can be strongly supported is microevolution, or if you will, adaptation or enhancement.

Now, to acknowledge that my previous statements made earlier in this thread about mutation always being a loss of information in DNA need to be retracted if I am to accept the possibility that microevolution and adaptation enhance or improve an organism. This would indeed be a gain in beneficial information in DNA if it is correct as far as I can tell. I apologize for the statements because I have found I may have believed contradictory positions.

So you are okay with mutation leading to information GAINED. Thus, microevolution can enhance an organism.

Just so you know, I you probably already do, I am not prepared to accept macroevolution (I hope I am using this term correctly) or evolution of one life form into a higher life form in a step by step process over time no matter how rapid or slow. Acknowledging my layman’s position and lack of education and expertise in this area, I still do not see it to be a plausible reality. I can’t see microevolution continuing on forever in an individual organism because of negative mutation in an organism that is happening at the same time.

Now, you are saying you can't see microevoltion continuing because of "negative mutation" which I take to mean information LOSS.

Please clarify. It sounds to me like you are saying, "Okay, mutation can lead to information gained, so microevolution can enhance organisms, but I can't accept macroevolution because continued microevolution leads to information loss and makes organisms worse".

 

[Christian Dude]

I'm just going to bed, so I'll just deal with this one question for now.

I told you, dammit!

[swiki]Neck of the Giraffe[/swiki]

I told you. The "valves in its neck" --- we've all got them. The "sponge-like organ" --- you mean the rete mirabile, common to ungulates. "Are we to believe that it evolved these organs first"? --- no! Read the article!

I showed you the answers to these specific questions about giraffes before you asked them.

Dr Adequate, you understood my cryptic reference to the giraffe originally, and I read the link you gave me. I made the second post to clarify what I was referring to, in my cryptic comment about the giraffe, for others who missed it. When I made the comment originally, I was also trying to be funny. Sorry.

So you are okay with mutation leading to information GAINED. Thus, microevolution can enhance an organism.

Now, you are saying you can't see microevoltion continuing because of "negative mutation" which I take to mean information LOSS.

Please clarify. It sounds to me like you are saying, "Okay, mutation can lead to information gained, so microevolution can enhance organisms, but I can't accept macroevolution because continued microevolution leads to information loss and makes organisms worse".

I will answer SuperCoolGuy’s question to me, then I think I need to stop commenting about biological processes I do not have the level of education, expertise or familiarity with as most of you here seem to have. I will switch to just asking questions, in this specific area, to further my education in this subject.

To clarify my thoughts, it is a two fold reason I can’t accept macroevolution. The first reason, which I will phrase as a question, will probably show my ignorance in genetics and biology, but here goes. Am I correct to say that both types of mutation happen within an organisms’ DNA, mutation that may enhance the organism, and mutation that may degrade the organism? If this is the case, over time, wouldn’t the negative mutation reach a level where it causes so many problems the organism would not be able to maintain metabolism?

The second reason I can’t accept macroevolution is because of my religious beliefs.

Now I did make some comments that are not about the actual biological processes happening within an organism. I would like to bolster them a bit further here. As a layman reading material written by scientists that has been published for the world to see, I believe I can rightly say, because of the their own statements, macroevolution is still only a theory and not fact. Talk.Origins states evolution is both a theory and a fact. I have also heard and read this elsewhere. I do not accept the "fact" part for this reason. I will give one example from the article I have read most recently. It is only one of very many instances of this specific context given in material dealing with evolution.

From the article written by Pete Dunkelburg found at this link: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#howmight

There is a summery given after the four points in the summery have been discussed in greater detail in a preceding paragraph in the article. In the paragraphs preceding this quote Dunkelburg uses the terminology of “possibility”, “may become”, “noteworthy possibility” and “may evolve”.

Here is the direct quote from the article:

“We can summarize these four possibilities this way:
• Previously using more parts than necessary for the function.
• The parts themselves evolve.
• Deployment of parts (gene regulation) evolves.
• New parts are created (gene duplication) and may then evolve.”

Dunkelburg acknowledges that these are only possibilities and speculation, not demonstratable facts because of the use of this terminology. The article is replete with comments like this. All books and articles on evolution contain this type of terminology. These words in context, and other comments like them, in their proper context, confirm to anyone reading, layman or not, that macroevolution is still speculation and theoretical. It can not be both, fact and theoretical. That would be a contradiction. The definitions of fact and theory do not allow for this.

When scientists use terminology and wording like this, how can they expect the person reading what they write to take it as fact. If they were to remove this type of terminology from their writing, they would then be compromising their integrity because the truth is that it is theory. To say evolution is fact is disingenuous and contradictory in this light, in my opinion.

 

[gnome]

To clarify my thoughts, it is a two fold reason I can’t accept macroevolution. The first reason, which I will phrase as a question, will probably show my ignorance in genetics and biology, but here goes. Am I correct to say that both types of mutation happen within an organisms’ DNA, mutation that may enhance the organism, and mutation that may degrade the organism? If this is the case, over time, wouldn’t the negative mutation reach a level where it causes so many problems the organism would not be able to maintain metabolism?

A fair question. It goes into natural selection, as I understand it. We're not talking about a single organism that acquires positive and negative traits over time. We're talking about multiple organisms... most born effectively the same as their parents... some born with positive mutations, and some born with negative mutations. The ones with mutations that enhance their survival and reproductive ability, have more offspring than the ones that don't have such mutations.

The second reason I can’t accept macroevolution is because of my religious beliefs.

What is the implication if you study the topic enough, and learn something that contradicts your beliefs? Can your faith not survive an adjustment of the facts that you learn? That seems rather tenuous.

 

[Piggy]

Evolution in a nutshell

To ned flandas:

1. All species produce more offspring than can survive.
2. Offspring resemble their parents, but will differ in some aspects (either by mutation, or genetic recombination as the result of sexual reproduction).
3. Those offspring who are less adapted to an ever-changing environment will produce fewer offspring, while those who are more adapted will produce more.

If those 3 statements are true (and they are) then evolution is the inevitable result.

Over geologic timespans, those variations in offspring which favor survival and reproduction tend to perpetuate themselves. And as critters move into different environments, and as those environments change, over time some but not all will differentiate into new/different species.

Darwin formulated the basics of this model over 100 years ago (even though he had no knowledge of genetics). In that time, the theory has been tweaked -- it turns out that change doesn't necessarily happen slowly like a glacier, but can come in spurts when the environment gets badly shaken up -- but its predictions have survived all major challenges and been verified by new scientific endeavors such as genetics and embryology.

For example, the human hand, the bat's wing, and the whale's fin have highly similar (to put it mildly) bone structures. Only evolutionary theory can explain this -- they are all mammals and so descended from a common ancestor. Creation/ID theories would predict that the bat's wing would resemble a bird's wing, and the whale's fin would resemble a fish fin.

Creation/ID theory would also predict that species on similar island habitats would be much like each other, and not much like the species on nearby continents. But when you look at these species' body structures, you find that in every case, the island species resemble the nearby continental species more than they resemble other species on similar island climates in other parts of the world.

You also see that swimming and flying critters are much more likely to have kin on islands than crawling critters. The only explantion for this is that these animals migrated to these islands and evolved while they were there.

There are many more proofs of evolution. It's a fascinating field. It is not faith or conjecture. It is observably true.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Christian Dude, you appear to be picturing evolution as the bombardment of individual organisms with DNA mutations, followed by the wholesale copying of their DNA into their offspring. I apologize if this is not the way you are picturing it.

Instead, as Gnome said, picture it as the copying of DNA from one generation to the next, with the possible introduction of a few mutations during the copying process. An offspring can inherit a fatal mutation, in which case it is dead. It can inherit slightly negative or neutral mutations, in which case it carries on. It can inherit a helpful mutation, in which case there is some chance that the mutation will increase its ability to produce offspring, who will perhaps inherit the beneficial mutation. Now picture this process over millions and billions of years.

Let me repeat Minsky's Theorem of Evolution, with the critical phrase in bold:

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

~~ Paul

 

[Piggy]

NB: The "For example" stuff above is not evidence from new endeavors such as genetics and embryology. Darwin was able to observe these facts over a century ago.

In genetic research, we find that organisms are very crufty. There's lots of left-over genetic material that can only be explained by evolutionary development, like old plumbing in a building that's been continually re-renovated. Had all species been created as-is, there would be no need for it, any more than a contractor constructing a new building would bother to stuff it full of useless 19th century lead pipe capped off at both ends and hidden in the walls, serving no purpose.

Yet we find that at very early embryonic stages, some of these genes are expressed. Creation/ID theories don't account for this, either, but it fits squarely with what evolutionary theory predicted.

We also see some of these primitive genes expressed in mutations, such as chicken embryos with "dinosaur teeth" or equines with striped skin.

Of course, if someone wants to dismiss evolution out of hand because their religion forbids it, then there's no need for discussion. If I believed firmly, for example, that Genesis was accurate when it said that there's is an ocean above the sky, and I was not willing to reconsider the matter, then my world view would be horribly warped (I would be obliged to believe that the moon landing was a hoax and that satellites aren't real, for instance) and I couldn't contribute in any way to a meaningful discussion of space exploration -- all I could do would be to deny and justify.

But anyone who has moved beyond that stance will, I think, find the evidence for evolution not only overwhemling, but compelling and unassailable.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

To clarify my thoughts, it is a two fold reason I can’t accept macroevolution. The first reason, which I will phrase as a question, will probably show my ignorance in genetics and biology, but here goes. Am I correct to say that both types of mutation happen within an organisms’ DNA, mutation that may enhance the organism, and mutation that may degrade the organism? If this is the case, over time, wouldn’t the negative mutation reach a level where it causes so many problems the organism would not be able to maintain metabolism?

It sounds like there is confusion between mutations that pass from parent organism to offspring organism, and mutations that pass from parent cell to replicated cell within an organism.

Yes, it is possible that a severely negative mutation can be passed on to replicated cells to a point that there are so many cells that are non-functional or overtly aggressive to other cells that the organism dies. We call this cancer.

So, ChristianDude, I would draw your attention to the fact that mutations in the context of evolution are those slight changes to the DNA that result in a macroscopic modification to the organism (whether good or bad). The organism will live its life with this modification and either benefit or not over its competitors for survival.

DNA has information for the overall structure of the organism as well as the
information for building the various types of cells that make up the organism.

 

[Dogdoctor]

CD,
In thinking about evolution you are dealing with a gene pool and not the genes of single individual. Mutations occur that can be harmful neutral, or beneficial and actually can be a combination of both harmful and beneficial. They may help in one way and hinder in another. For these mutations to become a part of the gene pool they need to occur in the ovaries or testicles of mammals. If they are very deleterious then the sperm or egg may not function normally and thus immediately eliminated from the gene pool. If they are a little less deleterious they will cause a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. A little less harmful and the baby is born but does not survive long enough to reproduce. Most of the mutations that make it into the gene pool are either beneficial or neutral although lots of harmful genes make it into the gene pool over a long period of time. There are numerous genetic defects present in the human gene pool. I am not a human doctor but think knowN heritable problems may number in thousands, I think I have heard 5000. For each of those problem causing defects there are probably a lot more beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations are harder to notice and less money is spent finding them since these people with them are healthy. They still find some in studying athletes and possibly in other situations. Many of these detrimental mutations are recessive genes. Recessive genes will usually be most harmful when you receive copies of the gene from both parents. These are maintained in the gene pool since they are not very harmful when you have only one copy of the gene. Anyway these genes are present in the gene pool or the breeding population of a species. These harmful genes may eventually mutate into beneficial ones or may be eliminated through genetic pressure where the survival of organisms with the bad gene is challenged but not those without the gene. Anyway these harmful mutations are harmful to an individual organism but not necessarily to the species since it will be eliminated from the gene pool or lowered in numbers by being harmful to the individual organism.
Macroevolution is well accepted by science and while it may be called the "theory of evolution" it is really a well established fact. There is considerable evidence that evolution (macro) has occurred but the exact details of how this occurred is not now known though we have more and more information about it as time passes and more studies are done. Denying evolution would be much like saying gravitational theory is just a theory and so gravity may not exist.

 

[c4ts]

You could have found out all about the giraffe by reading the very first book about evolution, Darwin's Origin of Species.

That's what everybody should be doing, instead of this "masterclass" or cheat sheet kind of thing. This should be for getting up to date once you've read the thing.