Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[PixyMisa]

Ok, it's kind of hazy what the first creatures evolved from chemicals were. So let's say the last common metazoan ancestor. They would have simple genomes because they hadn't evolved so far and didn't have functions like a brain or something. They wouldn't be expected according to evolution to have all the genes human beings have, for example, or chimps or frogs, mice, etc, etc,....

In the sense that a single-celled creature wouldn't have genes for producing neurons, or leukocytes, yes.

Nope. Mutations are random, right? They don't happen just because they are needed by the environment according to standard evo science.

Right, mutations are random. But they happen to individuals. They need to spread. Over generations, natural selection promotes genes for advantageous traits in the gene pool of the species.

 

[randman]

Novel genes develop via mutation, and are established in the gene pool via natural selection.

Correct.

Bingo. This is what I am asking and of course, evolution teaches

You then say genetic material can arise without needing to be used. So novel genes can arise without natural selection at all? If that's the case, then who cares about natural selection as a driver of beneficial mutations? I would like to discuss how natural selection decreases genetic variability but feel I am getting ahead of myself.

The creatures that gave rise to plants and animals wouldn't be expected to have all the genes human beings possess, right? The idea here is they started out as simple with simple genomes and as they mutated, they added traits and the new genes (mutations) survived. That's evolution's teaching and prediction, right?

 

[PixyMisa]

Very, very broadly, yes. But it is not that simple.
Organisms will, indeed, tend to accumulate more complex genome as evolutionary time goes by.

But there is a big caveat to that is that bigger bloated genomes leads to bigger cells, leads to longer replication times...
So, there are some level of evolutionary pressure to keep the genome size down. This pressure is not uniform, though. It is not a big deal for us, for example. But it has been shown that flying vertebrates, birds in particular but it is also true in the bats to some extend, tend to have smaller genomes.
Similarly, species who live in very highly competitive environment will have a pressure for smaller, faster replicating genomes. Bacteria being a prime example of this, most of their genome to play a direct role.

Yes, I was wondering about that myself, I just didn't know how significant the selective pressure was. Obviously duplicating DNA has a metabolic cost, so less DNA is better if it doesn't cost you functionality.

Also, the term 'older' means little. Life on earth, by all known facts, share a universal common ancestor. So all life form are as old as each others.
Furthermore, life forms that appeared earlier tend to be smaller and have shorter generations. So they tend to replicate, and thus evolve, faster. And yet, because they are so small, there is an active pressure to keep their genome size down...

Yes. It simple maths that it will require more genetic changes and thus more time for a genetically complex species to evolve than a simple one, and so, very broadly, species evolving later will be more complex than earlier ones. But that's a prediction of statistics, not evolutionary theory. And I doubt that randman is expecting to prove that statistics is wrong.

 

[randman]

In the sense that a single-celled creature wouldn't have genes for producing neurons, or leukocytes, yes.

So would they have genes for complex nerve functions or not? For "producing" is a bit of a weasel statement since you could just say they didn't produce. But the question is whether the genes were there for complex nerve function.

 

[dlorde]

De Grasse was just one of the more prominent scientists and biologists of the 20th century and said those things in the 70s.

Can you provide a link to this biologist De Grasse? I did a quick google and checked wikipedia, but couldn't find him.

 

[Simon39759]

Ok, let's talk over a 500 million year period. Evolution predicts the slow accumulation of genes during that time, right? Exceptions noted but the first organisms didn't start out with all the genes that exist today according to darwinism. They evolved via an adaptionist process where mutations occurred and selective advantage promoted species and so with new traits and species, new genes evolved.

That's evolution, right?

Nope.
Evolution predicts the arrival of new genes, but evolutions also predicts the deletion of genes.
It is not directional toward more complexity, it goes in whatever direction is the more advantageous at any given time.

Now, if you look at the earliest organisms, there were just about as simple as could be. So there is no way they could have gained an evolutionary advantage by gaining in simplicity. So the system was walled at the 'bottom' and the only diversity possible was up, toward more complexity.
To a limited extent, one could say that, as life became more complex and better performing, the bottom wall has been rising a bit. What, 4 billion years ago would have been a perfectly cromulent organism would now be out-competed and driven to extension.

So, yes, there has been a trend toward more complexity, but it is only the vaguest of trend and certainly not a universal law...

 

[PixyMisa]

Bingo. This is what I am asking and of course, evolution teaches

You then say genetic material can arise without needing to be used. So novel genes can arise without natural selection at all?

Novel genes develop via mutation, and are established in the gene pool via natural selection.

If that's the case, then who cares about natural selection as a driver of beneficial mutations?

Novel genes develop via mutation, and are established in the gene pool via natural selection.

I would like to discuss how natural selection decreases genetic variability but feel I am getting ahead of myself.

Definitely.

The creatures that gave rise to plants and animals wouldn't be expected to have all the genes human beings possess, right?

Correct.

The idea here is they started out as simple with simple genomes and as they mutated, they added traits and the new genes (mutations) survived.

Define simple.

 

[randman]

It simple maths that it will require more genetic changes and thus more time for a genetically complex species to evolve than a simple one, and so, very broadly, species evolving later will be more complex than earlier ones. But that's a prediction of statistics, not evolutionary theory. And I doubt that randman is expecting to prove that statistics is wrong.

I am indeed. Not really stats are wrong but as you say, accepting evolution of course, "it will require more genetic changes and thus more time for a genetically complex species to evolve than a simple one."

What if that is not the case at all?

Let's test that. What are some examples off the top of your head of "genetically complex species"?

 

[randman]

Can you provide a link to this biologist De Grasse? I did a quick google and checked wikipedia, but couldn't find him.

Pierre-Paul Grasse, not De Grasse....my mistake though I thought the "de" was before his name.

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6

Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.8

 

[PixyMisa]

I am indeed. Not really stats are wrong but as you say, accepting evolution of course, "it will require more genetic changes and thus more time for a genetically complex species to evolve than a simple one."

What if that is not the case at all?

Then you've falsified arithmetic. Hurrah!

Let's test that. What are some examples off the top of your head of "genetically complex species"?

Depends on how you define complexity, of course. If you're just counting chromosomes or genes, flowering plants would probably be at the top of the list. (Or at least near the top; I'm not a biologist and don't follow new dicoveries that closely.)

Polyploidy is very common in plants and greatly increases the quantity of genetic material, though of course it doesn't increase the range of biochemical processes that material codes for.

So if you want to ask that question, you need to define complex.

 

[randman]

The creatures that gave rise to plants and animals wouldn't be expected to have all the genes human beings possess, right?

Correct.

Would they be close? How about mice or mammals or birds or dinosaurs? In other words, are you saying genetic complexity in all of biota generally went from simple (meaning last common ancestor) to greater as all the new species and families of species evolved?

 

[PixyMisa]

Would they be close? How about mice or mammals or birds or dinosaurs? In other words, are you saying genetic complexity in all of biota generally went from simple (meaning last common ancestor) to greater as all the new species and families of species evolved?

In all biota? No, absolutely not.

 

[randman]

Then you've falsified arithmetic. Hurrah!


Depends on how you define complexity, of course. If you're just counting chromosomes or genes, flowering plants would probably be at the top of the list. (Or at least near the top; I'm not a biologist and don't follow new dicoveries that closely.)

Polyploidy is very common in plants and greatly increases the quantity of genetic material, though of course it doesn't increase the range of biochemical processes that material codes for.

So if you want to ask that question, you need to define complex.

OK, let's pick a clear delineation. Would the first metazoan or very simple organism without a central nervous system and backbone have a less complex genome than vertebrates? Would genes for vertebrate nerve function evolve along with the evolution of the function of vertebrate nerves?

That's really the point I am getting at. Darwinism predicts genes to evolve in conjunction with function that is selected for.

 

[randman]

In all biota? No, absolutely not.

So life did not begin with early, less complex organisms with less complex genomes that evolved into all the genomes of all the species today?

 

[dlorde]

Mutations add genetic material which adds new physical traits, right?

They don't necessarily add genetic material. Insertions, deletions, swaps, point changes, are all forms of mutation.

 

[Cavemonster]

Ok, we are getting somewhere. "Evolution" which I am calling Darwinism predicts a greater level of genetic complexity over time. That's a specific prediction of the theory.

So what if that isn't true?

Would that convince you Darwinism is incorrect?

Ah, I see where you went off track.

You seem to be conflating genetic change with an increase in complexity and assuming change comes from "added" genes.

Mutations are just as likely to make changes that result in less complexity or neutral changes to complexity. Selection pressures more or less will do the same.

Greater complexity of genes can lead to a wider variety of traits, so up to a point, increase in complexity is somewhat likely. This doesn't mean the destruction of simpler life forms. It also doesn't mean a constant and unending increase in complexity. When you get to a point with no untapped niches, or at which the amount of change needed within a genome to exploit untapped niches exceeds the ability of the mechanisms of change, then there is no likelyhood of increased complexity.

In fact, for many species, decreased complexity can make them more fit for new niches. Greater biological complexity often requires more resources, more energy sources, longer gestational time etc. Things that are features in one context become bugs in another.

Just look to some of the simplest, oldest life forms on the planet. If an organism with a comparatively simple genome is able to survive and reproduce, it will do so.

 

[randman]

Novel genes develop via mutation, and are established in the gene pool via natural selection.

Let's try this so we can move on. "Novel genes develop via mutation, and are established in the gene pool via natural selection."

Finally. So new genes evolve or develop and remain in the gene pool through natural selection. That's what you are saying.

Why? They remain in the gene pool through natural selection because they confer selective advantage, correct? So you have new genes via mutation and as species evolve via natural selection, those genes survive and the process keeps repeating itself and so gradually we see an accumulation of new genes.

Right?

 

[PixyMisa]

OK, let's pick a clear delineation. Would the first metazoan or very simple organism without a central nervous system and backbone have a less complex genome than vertebrates?

You still haven't defined complex. But broadly, yes, that would be expected.

Would genes for vertebrate nerve function evolve along with the evolution of the function of vertebrate nerves?

That question doesn't make any sense. The function is the expression of the genes; the evolution is the same. It doesn't evolve "along with" anything, it's the same thing.

 

[randman]

They don't necessarily add genetic material. Insertions, deletions, swaps, point changes, are all forms of mutation.

No kidding but new genes are added via mutation which remain through natural selection and over time, this process repeats itself until new genes accumulate along with new traits. That's the general pattern, right?

 

[PixyMisa]

So life did not begin with early, less complex organisms with less complex genomes that evolved into all the genomes of all the species today?

Yes, it did. But the two statements are unconnected. Complex organisms are vastly outnumbered by simple ones.

The most complex organisms today are more complex than the most complex organisms half a billion years ago, and the most complex organisms then were more complex than the most complex organisms a billion years ago.

But simple organisms haven't gone anywhere. You yourself are 90% bacteria by cell count.