I will answer every question about evolution you have

originally posted by: Ghost147


Perhaps this quote from the article "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features" may be able to explain the phenomena more clearly.

A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms -- computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.

Not sure if I'm just playing semantics here or not....but we were questioning complex FEATURES...and that experiment they conducted only showed that "no intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex FUNCTIONS".

Am I wrong to assume that features and functions are actually different things?

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Isn't the complex feature (e.g. eyes) necessary for the complex function (e.g. eyesight)?

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Saying that evolution occurs by small increments with complimentary traits reinforcing each other doesn't answer his question.

Yes, it does. It would be tedious, however, to explain the working of it, especially to someone who merely wishes to argue.

There are plenty of good books on the subject if you are genuinely curious.

a reply to: BOTAL

If you can't work out this rather obvious process in your own head, I doubt that any explanation will convince you. At any rate, I can't be bothered to explain. I have done so too many times for too many obtuse creationists, and scant gratitude have I ever received from any of them.

a reply to: Astyanax

I've read the books...but when I see an open source...ie "i will answer all your questions" then I'm pretty sure anything is open for discussion, regardless how "tedious" it may be...

I'm not here to argue. I'm here to learn....but thanks anyway.
A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

I'm not quite sure how this statement fits into the discussion? Has there been a statement that's been made that are grounds for rejecting the Theory of Evolution?

Oh, no, I don't think so. But art, religion and -- yes -- sex are proving themselves to be rather embarrassing in their intractability.

I'm aware of the antiparasite explanation for sex, Müller's Ratchet and all that. Moreover, I accept it as probably true. But if we look at organisms like Volvox, which are clearly implicated in the invention of sex, they were also the inventors of death. That is very interesting, and I don't think the parasite theory explains it.

However, it's a long way from this to rejecting evolution by natural selection. It may be, though, that it is only a special case of a broader, as yet unformulated theory, just as Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativistic mechanics.

By the way, I think you're doing a fine if somewhat too technical job. Sooner you than I. I'm up to here with the pearls-before-swine routine.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I'm pretty sure anything is open for discussion, regardless how "tedious" it may be...

With the OP, certainly. He offered. I didn't.

I feel he has more than adequately dealt with the subject already. I do not intend to add to what he has written.

a reply to: Astyanax

Soooo....

You replied to my comment...to say that you can't be bothered to answer my question.... because it's too tedious? WHY. EVEN. RESPOND?

A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

Servantofthelamb, we recognize that the information that we have provided is highly speculative. We also recognize that there could be discoveries that we do not personally know about that make similar speculative information that counter the information we provided.

Random mutation as the mechanism that facilitates body plan morphogenesis is highly speculative, yet I have talked to you enough to know that you treat body plan morphogenesis as a fact of reality even though Science really has no idea how it actually occurred or if it is even capable of occurring.

Furthermore, the arguments you presented do not suggest sexual reproduction is not as advantageous in general, he is arguing that the advantages in sexual reproduction may not account for genetic variability.

However, Sexual reproduction does take advantage of many other things. Such as combining two beneficial mutation into a single individual, which does not occur in Asexual reproduction. So it can aid in the spreading of advantageous traits.

Sexual Reproduction can also bring together currently deleterious mutations and create unfit individuals who will then be eliminated from the population. so it aids in the removal of deleterious genes, which Asexual Reproduction has a difficult time achieving.

These are not other things. The two quoted sections appear to contradict each other. One is referencing a paper arguing sexual reproduction is not a major force in genetic variation. Then you say that "sexual reproduction takes advantage of many other things. Such as combining two beneficial mutations into one individual." Adding and removing traits to the genome is genetic variation. I think you also answered part of it for me without realizing. The fact that sexual reproduction has repair mechanisms in place does not help variation, less variation less ability to evolve so the question would come back to why would sexual production ever be selected?

I would also argue that the number of beneficial mutations related to the number of undesirable mutations in two organisms is much greater. So each parent also passes on there bad mutations as well which would ruin the gene pool so to speak and increase the likelihood of extinction.

The only argument it presents is that Sexual Reproduction may not be as important to variation as was previously claimed.

I know and if you remember that was exactly what you were advocating as benefit for sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction. Without that benefit its less likely to be selected.

The entire class of Bdelloidea consists exclusively of females. There were once male and female genders, but now the females reproduce exclusively by parthenogenesis.

From my knowledge only part of this statement is true. The assumption that there was once males is not true in fact the paper below argues against the idea that males ever existed.

www.sciencedirect.com...

You’re assuming that the trait of sexual reproduction requires complex traits in order to function properly, even at the primitive form, and assuming there are no transitions in between, then also claiming that the claim we’re making is from asexual to Sexual reproduction with complex mutations.

The primitive form still required a transmission of egg and sperm. That regardless of how its done is gonna take a few extra traits. I know there is one organism they use cannot recall the name but it reproduces asexually when there are a few of them and when there are a lot they release spores. To create, expunge, and absorb those chemical new traits would be needed. Your problem is your just assuming that because animals with the same body plan have variation among them that they arose from something else. Most of your claims assume evolution is occurring in order to prove evolution.

Again, I am open to the fact that advantages in Sexual Reproduction may not be as dominant as previously claimed

If that is the case why would sexual reproduction ever be selected? You can't just assume that because we reproduce sexually it must have been selected at some point in the past. That would be assuming evolution to argue for evolution.

We typically think of observations as having been seen "with our own eyes," but in science, observations can take many forms. Of course, we can make observations directly by seeing, feeling, hearing, and smelling, but we can also extend and refine our basic senses with tools:

I agree we have technology that lets us do some cool stuff. However fossils don't tell you anything about the way an animals skin looked. They don't tell you what organs that animal had what traits were required for those specific organs and features. DNA when exposed to the elements is done for in about a week. Finding actual DNA with a fossil is incredibly rare, and even when we do, it is mitochondrial DNA which is only partial genetic information. There is no way to observe what was needed and if what was needed could have actually evolved thru whatever mechanisms we put forth. Even if we manage to do it in a lab that is no guarantee that is how things actually happened.

I’ve been looking deeper into GRNs ever since you mentioned it earlier, but I’m not quite sure where you’re seeing an issue that’s being caused by them. From what I can tell, the architecture of GRNs is dependent on DNA sequences, and when these change in evolution, the GRN....

What you are forgetting is that GRN's work like a network hence the name. Everything within that network is interdependent. Mutating one part at a time doesn't cut it because they work very similar to a control system. Davidson explained that they aren't flexible at all in the paper I put forth to you. This is why Stephen Myer says, "Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home." Sure GRN structure can change, but the problem is a slow gradual change doesn't cause it to be beneficial. The quote from a previous post from Davidson, "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work." This is why later in the article he calls for Science to start looking mechanism outside the Neo-Darwinian framework.

well even though I do not take scientific view of the world to be true or complete truth, but anyway what you are doing here is amazing. I have never seen such devotion to answering questions - a few posters have blown my mind away with the depth of your replays and I just want you all to know that I have read all of them and learned a lot and due to to much info probably forgotten a lot already - will have to read again sometime later. But I really appreciate the time you took for us who want to know more.Thanks!

From what I get science knows about the hows but what about the whys?

Why would cells want to experience life? When earth was formed and stable, what was the reason cells started to merge together in the way they did which brings us to first simple organisms.

You talk a lot about mutations and adaptations here. Adaptations are not the problem, here why is understood. But what about the mutations. Why did the first mutation occur and what logic is behind that - the transformation from material to life? Just because? random chance? If this is the answer than this is just a belief without solid ground.

And if we go further, why does a cell or a group of them want to develop better eye or anything else for that matter? How does a group of cells even know that they are for instance - the eye and why do they want to mutate. Cells are not intelligent and therefore why did mutations even occur. If you say that is nature, that is also blind belief without evidence.

Maybe this was answered already and I have overlooked it or not understood and in such case please just give me a link and say no more. Thanks : )

a reply to: UniFinity

I think I can probably answer some of those for you.

From what I get science knows about the hows but what about the whys?

I would say that Science focuses on mechanisms, so why is not a question Science should ask in the first place.

Why would cells want to experience life?

Cells don't want to experience life. Cells and Chemicals don't have intentions. The answer would be that the chemicals merged together because that is what the physics of the situation demanded, however we have no evidence of how this could have actually happened on earth in a pretty hostile environment. So the why would be because physics demands it, but that would be the why for any scientific claim. Because Science only deals with the Hows. Why does water want to evaporate? Water just evaporates in the presence of heat it wasn't a choice, and thats all Science cares about. Things don't evolve into eyes and ears and noses because they had the intention of becoming an something new that is simply what physics and competition for resources caused to come into being. This would be the evolutionary perspective in my opinion.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

WHY. EVEN. RESPOND?

Because you asked.

You butted into a discussion I was having with somebody else in order to tell me I should be ashamed of myself. Did you forget?

originally posted by: Ghost147
[Snipped]

With the best of my abilities (and hopefully the help of other knowledgeable members), I'm here to further knowledge on the subject of Evolution.

Now, I'm not quite sure what these questions will be so I'm opening the questions to others that may also feel that the Theory of Evolution is an inadequate way to determine how modern life came to be.

I understand evolution and abiogenesis are attempting to answer different questions; but I am curious if your personal belief system precludes a creative intelligence responsible for the "programming" of DNA and setting life on Earth in motion and potentially alternating it along the way?


.

a reply to: Astyanax

Because you basically told them, "if you don't know, read a book"...

You sit there and act as though you are educating folks...but in all actuality, all you're doing is telling them to read books. We get it...there is literature on the matter. Many of us, myself included, have read the literature. Stop treating us as though you are superior in knowledge when you have not demonstrated you know ANYTHING at all. The only thing you know for sure, is that there are books about it....

Example -
Me: "Hey what about vestigial organs?"
You: "You don't know about vestigial organs? *LOLrollseyes* Go read a book."


A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree



This shows how complexity can develop. As you can see in this picture, each incremental change is beneficial in its own way. In no way is there a faulty medium stage where it's only half an eye or has no function. It's a common misconception known as irreducible complexity. Like the eye, other complex organs developed the same way. Originally they were very simple.

a reply to: Barcs

This shows how complexity can develop. As you can see in this picture, each incremental change is beneficial in its own way. In no way is there a faulty medium stage where it's only half an eye or has no function. It's a common misconception known as irreducible complexity.

You are completely ignoring things on the genetic level, and I have already explained how you can mutate DNA forever and never get a new feature like an eye. That requires you to change the dGRN which we know cannot develop slowly overtime. The process of a cell becoming light sensitive is in and of itself incredibly complex. Putting out an artistic rendering is dishonest. Put out information.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Barcs

This shows how complexity can develop. As you can see in this picture, each incremental change is beneficial in its own way. In no way is there a faulty medium stage where it's only half an eye or has no function. It's a common misconception known as irreducible complexity.

You are completely ignoring things on the genetic level, and I have already explained how you can mutate DNA forever and never get a new feature like an eye. That requires you to change the dGRN which we know cannot develop slowly overtime. The process of a cell becoming light sensitive is in and of itself incredibly complex. Putting out an artistic rendering is dishonest. Put out information.

Please start citing the sources from which you are pulling your information.

a reply to: scorpio84

I have already cited that paper.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But you did get a complex feature like the eye. It just happened slowly. The changes to the eye are caused by incremental slow changes from genetic mutations, and then natural selection because they have a slight advantage. I have seen no such paper that suggests the eye is irreducibly complex. I posted the diagram to help the person understand how complex features can evolve. It seemed like he thought that they emerged quickly or simultaneously with other organs. There's nothing dishonest about that.

a reply to: Barcs

But you did get a complex feature like the eye. It just happened slowly. The changes to the eye are caused by incremental slow changes from genetic mutations, and then natural selection because they have a slight advantage. I have seen no such paper that suggests the eye is irreducibly complex.

Thats because I never said the eye was irreducibly complex. No new morphological features like an eye cannot arise solely thru the mutation of DNA and natural selection. The reason it cannot is because it would require an entirely new dGRN. We know that dGRN's cannot be changed one little piece at a time because they aren't flexible. They work like control systems. Go up a few comments you'll see where I quoted Myer and Davidson . The quote from Davidson is from a paper of his good the quote and it should come up.

I posted the diagram to help the person understand how complex features can evolve.

But they can't evolve that way?