Doubters of Evolution

[Gonzo]

I pose to you a hypothetical situation.

There are several assumptions which are known as facts that must be taken into account first though.

1) Genetic mutations exist (or at the very least accept that there are large amounts of varying genetics throughout a population). Examples would be varying eye color, hair color, and a variety of others regarding almost every aspect of an organism.

2) These mutations are coded for within DNA and can be passed down to offspring.

3) When mutations are selected for they have can "stacking up" effect to some degree, as we would see with dog breeding. (for example the breeding of bloodhounds with extremely sensitive sense of scent).


Now for my example lets say we take individuals from a human population and select for traits, much like animal breeding. We select for individuals with an extended tail bone/spine and continue to select for them throughout the generations. Based upon the above assumptions you will eventually have a group of individuals with an appendage much like a tail. Now if we select for smaller body size and body hair as well, we have something that looks very much like a monkey, but it wouldn't be and it would most likely still be able to breed with the regular human population. However, if you select for certain traits regarding sexual reproduction, specifically the acidity of the vagina and size of it as well (perhaps even shape). And you have the males in the population selected for characteristics that correspond, it will eventually make sexual reproduction with the normal human population impossible (Which under one definition of the species concept, will make them separate species). There are also some other wild genetic traits that exist in the human population that could be selected for, like webbed digits or blue skin even.


If this example does not convince you I ask that you point out the reasons so that I may use our existing knowledge of genetics and heritability to propose another hypothetical example that may persuade you. I also ask that you lay the groundwork on what constitutes a separate species in your opinion so that my example may incorporate it. Also, if you disagree with my assumptions I can help illustrate them as fact.

I realize my example uses artificial selection rather than natural selection, but I can substitute artificial pressures for environmental ones in the next situation I provide.

[Gonzo]

Well first off how do you differentiate between different "kinds" of animals?

Inbreeding was just what I used for my example which regarded artificial selection. Plenty of recessive traits manifest themselves in the human population (blue eyes and cleft chin etc.) without the adverse effects of inbreeding depression.

Inbreeding occurs more often in human history than you'd think, recent times too http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts, and it's not as damaging as you would think (http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/cousin33.html).

Would you consider the small blue gremlin' like creature I described human?

[Intrepidman]

Well first off how do you differentiate between different "kinds" of animals?

Inbreeding was just what I used for my example which regarded artificial selection. Plenty of recessive traits manifest themselves in the human population (blue eyes and cleft chin etc.) without the adverse effects of inbreeding depression.

But those recessive genes are normal and not harmful. How do you hope to produce your small blue gremlin without massive inbreeding? It seems to me that if it were possible, we would see them already.

Inbreeding occurs more often in human history than you'd think, recent times too http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts, and it's not as damaging as you would think (http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/cousin33.html).

To get a sort of 'small blue gremlin' the people would have to inbreed like crazy to avoid the 'small blue gremlin' genes being mixed up with the regular genes and having to start all over again.

And we know what happened to the Spanish Habsburg dynasty as a result of just a few generations of aggressive inbreeding.



=

On November 1st, 1700, an entire dynasty of kings came to a crashing end with the death of Charles II of Spain. Charles had neither a pleasant life nor a successful reign. He was physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured. A large tongue made his speech difficult to understand, he was bald by the age of 35, and he died senile and wracked by epileptic seizures. He had two wives but being impotent, he had no children and thus, no heirs. Which is what happens after 16 generations of inbreeding.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... hannellink

Would you consider the small blue gremlin' like creature I described human?

If he occured through natural means, sure. But I really don't think its possible, so the question is moot.

Sort of like asking, "If you could throw a baseball accurately at the speed of sound, would you be the best baseball pitcher ever?"

Well, yeah. I wouldn't want to be the catcher, though.

[Gonzo]

But those recessive genes are normal and not harmful. How do you hope to produce your small blue gremlin without massive inbreeding? It seems to me that if it were possible, we would see them already.

As I said it's an extreme example of artificial selection. In a natural situation traits would be selected for piece by piece rather than all at once. For example the blue skin to accommodate the need for camouflage to avoid predation in an azurite rich environment (a blue mineral). Slowly but surely individuals with a trait that grants them the increased ability to reproduce will pass on that trait to future generations (the basic theory of natural selection).

Does it not make sense that differing environments will select for different traits in animals of the same species?

You agree environments change a great deal over time right? Or at the very least that when populations migrate to new environments they can be subject to radically different influences. Do you see how it follows then that different genetic traits will be expressed as a population reproduces? And as more time passes the differences between the original species increase due to the divergence cause by becoming more adapted to separate environments. I mean so far all I've talked about is human genetic variance and we differ by a measly 0.1% and I've shown the diversity that can develop, is it so far fetched to believe that two things we classify as separate organisms were at one time members of the same population? Don't go so far down the road as microbe to man just yet, but maybe like birds and reptiles, or reptiles and mammals, get a glimpse of the big picture.

To get a sort of 'small blue gremlin' the people would have to inbreed like crazy to avoid the 'small blue gremlin' genes being mixed up with the regular genes and having to start all over again.

And we know what happened to the Spanish Habsburg dynasty as a result of just a few generations of aggressive inbreeding.

We inbred dogs plenty to receive the desired result to fit our needs. A lot of purebreds have genetic predispositions towards certain ailments but not all of them as you can clearly see today.

You don't have to start all over again either, you could just take it one trait at a time, there's no set time constraint on my proposition. Select for blue skin first, then slowly weed out any deficiencies you don't want. We can see mother nature doing this very well when it selects for a trait as those that are unfit don't reproduce (or at least not as effectively). The fact of the matter is recessive traits exist and are expressed within populations and may or may not have deleterious effects linked with them. The very fact that these recessive expressing individuals exist and can reproduce prove my point. If such a recessive trait were beneficial to the point of causing the organism with said trait to produce more viable offspring, then it would be likely that we we start to see such a trait more often as they interbred with the rest of the population, do you follow?

If he occured through natural means, sure. But I really don't think its possible, so the question is moot.

Sort of like asking, "If you could throw a baseball accurately at the speed of sound, would you be the best baseball pitcher ever?"

Well, yeah. I wouldn't want to be the catcher, though.

The difference being a human being is physically incapable of achieving such a feat as that pitch where as my example is entirely within the realm of possibility due to the fact the coding exists for a "blue gremlin".

[Goat]

Before I spend a lot of time in this thread can I ask what your definition of "Evolution" is?

From his descriptions, I would strongly suspect that his definition will be

Descent with modification

[Intrepidman]

The difference being a human being is physically incapable of achieving such a feat as that pitch where as my example is entirely within the realm of possibility due to the fact the coding exists for a "blue gremlin".

In humans? I would like to see evidence of this. I am not aware of coding for blue skin in mammals, and certainly not humans, for one thing. Even blue whales are not really blue, they are blueish-gray.

When you say 'small' how 'small' do you mean?

[Intrepidman]

We inbred dogs plenty to receive the desired result to fit our needs. A lot of purebreds have genetic predispositions towards certain ailments but not all of them as you can clearly see today.

I would like to see proof of this premise. AFAIK each breed has some aliment that we have to be careful of. Even pit bulls have issues:

Health Problems
A generally healthy breed, although some are prone to hip dysplasia, hereditary cataracts, allergies to grass and congenital heart disease.

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm

Can you supply the name of a breed that has no known health issues?

[Intrepidman]

You agree environments change a great deal over time right? Or at the very least that when populations migrate to new environments they can be subject to radically different influences. Do you see how it follows then that different genetic traits will be expressed as a population reproduces? And as more time passes the differences between the original species increase due to the divergence cause by becoming more adapted to separate environments. I mean so far all I've talked about is human genetic variance and we differ by a measly 0.1% and I've shown the diversity that can develop, is it so far fetched to believe that two things we classify as separate organisms were at one time members of the same population? Don't go so far down the road as microbe to man just yet, but maybe like birds and reptiles, or reptiles and mammals, get a glimpse of the big picture.

I agree that there can be genetic variance within a kind of organism. We can also clearly see the health results of trying to 'stack up' genetic characteristics. At some point that 'stacking up' results in non-viable organisms. AFAIK, this is always the case. So the question is, when would I consider 2 organisms not to be the same kind of organism?

I prefer to use 'kind'. Dog, bear, cat, etc.

[Grumpy]

Intrepidman

So the question is, when would I consider 2 organisms not to be the same kind of organism?

I prefer to use 'kind'. Dog, bear, cat, etc.

How about horse and donkey???

Cattle, oxen and Bison???

Elephant and Mammoth???

Lion, tiger, puma, cheetah, lynx, Persian???

Velociraptor, Archeopteryx, Ostrich, Eagle, Parrot and Penguin???

Wolf, Dingo, Chihuahua???

Lizard and snake???

Trout and shark???

Sea Scorpion and Fat Tail???

"Kinds" is not a scientific designation, it is an archaic form used by people who were ignorant of the facts and has no scientifically valid meaning. And we are talking about science here.

Grumpy

[Intrepidman]

Intrepidman

So the question is, when would I consider 2 organisms not to be the same kind of organism?

I prefer to use 'kind'. Dog, bear, cat, etc.

How about horse and donkey???

Cattle, oxen and Bison???

Elephant and Mammoth???

Lion, tiger, puma, cheetah, lynx, Persian???

Velociraptor, Archeopteryx, Ostrich, Eagle, Parrot and Penguin???

Wolf, Dingo, Chihuahua???

Lizard and snake???

Trout and shark???

Sea Scorpion and Fat Tail???

"Kinds" is not a scientific designation, it is an archaic form used by people who were ignorant of the facts and has no scientifically valid meaning. And we are talking about science here.

Grumpy

Kind would roughly translate to genus, or perhaps family, depending on the situation.

You do love that appeal to ridicule, don't ya?

[Gonzo]

The difference being a human being is physically incapable of achieving such a feat as that pitch where as my example is entirely within the realm of possibility due to the fact the coding exists for a "blue gremlin".

In humans? I would like to see evidence of this. I am not aware of coding for blue skin in mammals, and certainly not humans, for one thing. Even blue whales are not really blue, they are blueish-gray.

When you say 'small' how 'small' do you mean?

Methemoglobinemia can be caused by a recessive allele and results in Caucasians receiving blueish-hued skin.

By small I mean Pygmy small. They also reach sexual maturity faster than other populations of humans.

I would like to see proof of this premise (regarding purebreds). AFAIK each breed has some aliment that we have to be careful of. Even pit bulls have issues:

Poorly phrased on my part. I meant to say that within a group of animals considered "purebred" there exist individuals who do not express deleterious recessive genes but maintain the characteristics to still be considered "purebred".

I agree that there can be genetic variance within a kind of organism. We can also clearly see the health results of trying to 'stack up' genetic characteristics. At some point that 'stacking up' results in non-viable organisms. AFAIK, this is always the case. So the question is, when would I consider 2 organisms not to be the same kind of organism?

I prefer to use 'kind'. Dog, bear, cat, etc.

Despite inbreeding depression and the deleterious genes associated with it, populations still possess healthy individuals with recessive alleles expressed in their phenotypes. Doesn't it seem a bit odd for such a phenomena to occur if these deleterious genes should be stacking up? The simple reason is that natural selection weeds out deleterious genes expressed as by the genes' very nature they hinder the organisms ability to reproduce, this happens until you maintain the gene the environment pressures to be expressed (for increased reproduction).

How do you differentiate between these "kinds"? What criteria do you use?