Level of Proof for Evolution

aaronmark:

Various diseases undergo positive mutations quite regularly. It's one of the big worries about avian influenza - that it will mutate so as to be directly transmissible among human beings, or so as to become an airborne illness.

Already, we have a number antibiotic-resistant types of bacteria, and they cause huge problems in hospitals everywhere.
 
Thanks for the reply, James R. I'm curious, though, is the evolution of viruses simple natural selection or are they developing and passing on new genetic material to their progeny?
 
aaronmark said:
Thanks for the reply, James R. I'm curious, though, is the evolution of viruses simple natural selection or are they developing and passing on new genetic material to their progeny?
Click to expand...

I think you should look at some reference material about virus replication, http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa110900a.htm . Viruses can replicate very quickly. Many generations in a short period of time will result in quick genetic divergence. The ability to evade immune systems is the selection pressure. A virus that cannot evade the host cells immune response will not be able to reproduce.
 
James R said:
aaronmark:

Various diseases undergo positive mutations quite regularly. It's one of the big worries about avian influenza - that it will mutate so as to be directly transmissible among human beings, or so as to become an airborne illness.

Already, we have a number antibiotic-resistant types of bacteria, and they cause huge problems in hospitals everywhere.
Click to expand...

Right James. BUT the Avian flu does not mutate into a whole chicken. Surely you realize that this line of reasoning hurts evolution more than it helps because all these mutations retain the same basic biological structure.
 
John99 said:
Right James. BUT the Avian flu does not mutate into a whole chicken. Surely you realize that this line of reasoning hurts evolution more than it helps because all these mutations retain the same basic biological structure.
Click to expand...
James R never said Avian flu mutates into a whole chicken. That is a red herring thrown out by creationists. That said, it is conceivable that something like avian flu could evolve into something like a chicken -- given a few billion years.
 
Great article, Repo Man! That's helpful for jokers like me who dropped out of college before getting to this kind of stuff.

So it does look like the adaptation of viruses is a case of rapid natural selection, and that their "mutation" is not mutation that introduces new genetic material from one generation to the next. It's just viruses being viruses. Very helpful information, though.

I'm hoping to find a study where scientists have been able to identify the "normal" genetic structure of an organism ahead of time, and then observe a mutation that introduces new genetic material of some kind (an extra chromosome, for instance) that is advantageous to the organism.

(And in response to some articles linked to earlier... near duplicate series in DNA do not constitute evidence of extra genetic material... the reuse of the numeral 4 is necessary to create the unique number 49,244. Duplication of certain genetic patterns is inherent in the genetic definition of different organisms.)
 
Last edited:
D H said:
James R never said Avian flu mutates into a whole chicken. That is a red herring thrown out by creationists. That said, it is conceivable that something like avian flu could evolve into something like a chicken -- given a few billion years.
Click to expand...

I agree that his response was off topic. But it is not clear to me yet that a virus could progress that way via mutation. I have seen countless examples of mutations that augment an organisms genetic material... but all of these result in death (or conditions that prevent reproduction and inhibit survival).

I am still searching for an example of an "augmenting mutation" (not simple natural selection) that does not kill the organism. When I find that, then I will be content to concede that your virus could become a chicken. Though, why it would want to, I do not know. :)
 
S.A.M. said:
I would require the following:

1. a sign of metabolism: i.e. self sustenance
2. reproduction: ie species sustenance
3. adaptation i.e. response to environmental cues that guarantee survival.

also, does that mean mules are not alive?
Click to expand...

BenTheMan said:
What does "metabolism" and "self-substanance" mean? I'm certain that some organisms cannot sustain themselves outside of a very sepcifc environment.

The second point has already been argued above:)

Either the third condition is untenable, as per the original post, or it is already proven in the fossil record. If you want to actually "see" evolution in the lab, then it will never be proven---the natural time scale for these things is on the order of millions of years.

On mules---they cannot self replicate, this is true. But the requirement of self-replication is not suitable for all life, rather, it serves as a base definition.
Click to expand...

I believe the question was about evolution, not life.
Mules, not being able to replicate, cannot come to be as a species through evolution.
 
John99 said:
So you want to begin with fully developed complex organisms?
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand... Personally, I'm looking for a documented case of an organism with any level of complexity surviving a mutation that causes it to become more genetically complex.

The only cases I've seen where new genetic material is introduced, the organism dies. The more complex the organism, the longer it seems to survive, but they have been invariably unable to reproduce or inhibited in their survival.
 
aaronmark said:
(And in response to some articles linked to earlier... near duplicate series in DNA do not constitute evidence of extra genetic material...
Click to expand...
Uh, yes they do. They are the extra genetic material itself. And they provide sites for mutations less likely to prove immediately harmful, and available for future or present benefit - that is just one of several of the "augmenting mechanisms" you claim to seek, that have already been pointed out to you. We find traces of its past operations in every genome we study.

aaronmark said:
I'm hoping to find a study where scientists have been able to identify the "normal" genetic structure of an organism ahead of time, and then observe a mutation that introduces new genetic material of some kind (an extra chromosome, for instance) that is advantageous to the organism.
Click to expand...
Again, you seek labarotory events that are almost impossible (and very expensive) to observe in a lab, and almost never sought in controlled circumstances.

We have thousands of events of extra genetic material introduced - by natural, artificial, and chance means - in controlled stiuations, that proved adaptive to those situations; seedless watermelons have spread all over the world, due to their superior adaptation to human consumption, for one example. They are very well adapted to their new environment.

We will almost never observe beneficial adaptation to wild conditions under controlled circumstances because in wild conditions we are not observing in controlled conditions. OK ?
john said:
Enmos, when did the first fully functioning heart appear?
Click to expand...
According to Darwinian theory, there is no such thing as the "first fully functioning heart". You would know this if you understood Darwinian theory. The idea that there had to be a "first" af a complex thing is a Creationist idea, which Darwinian theory specifically replaces with the mechanism of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Enmos said:
What is your point ?
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that if i asked you for an approximation of when the first fully functioning heart (even a primitive version) appeared or the path it took to evolve that you have absolutely no idea?

Yet you are 100% certain of evolution?
 
John99 said:
You mean to tell me that if i asked you for an approximation of when the first fully functioning heart (even a primitive version) appeared or the path it took to evolve that you have absolutely no idea?

Yet you are 100% certain of evolution?
Click to expand...

This is a nonsense argument. But fine, I will amuse you.
The sea squirt was one of the first organisms to have a primitive heart, the mamalian heart evolved from it.
The sea squirt evolved 550 million years ago, so there is your answer.
If you would accept more primitive tissues which were the precurors of the heart that date would be much earlier of course.
Satisfied ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top