If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[Autodidact]

Critical: Are you asserting that science has NOT observed any new species coming into existence?

btw, are you familiar with ring species?

[Critical_Thinker]

Hi Goat. Thank you for your response. The limits that can occur in a creature are related to the genes, especially the hox genes. When a genome obtains multiple mutations, it no longer is able to function as an organism.

False. Every organism, yourself included, has new mutations in them. We can, and have, measured these changes in a variety of organisms. The vast majority of individuals are not adversely affected because most mutations are neutral.

The creature begins to decline. I would hope that you would conduct your own research, as I doubt that you would accept my sources.

I have. In fact, I have done research in population biology where we track populations based upon mutations in specific parts of the genome.

Just think of the multiple experiments performed on fruit flys. No new species ever developed as a result of all the experiments.

So what? No one was ever trying to create a new species. We were trying to figure out what the genes do.

Auxiliary pumps are also needed to pump the blood to the giraffe’s long neck. How do you suppose this may have developed?

Same way as anything else. As the giraffe neck grew, the ability to get blood to the brain became a limiting factor, but as those "pumps" evolved, they allowed for longer necks. It is co-evolution of traits.



Hi nygreenguy. Would you provide more information biologically, how co-evolution works? My understanding of the theory of evolution is that small, seemingly insufficient mutations occur in a creature, whether beneficial or detramental, and xxxxx

You asked for some material regarding research related to hox gene mutations having limitations. I listed below some of my resources. These texts provide actual examples. Some are from evolutionists and some are from creationists. If you don’t trust Creationist’s research, you can skip it. I understand. When I get a chance, I will check on the specific details of the experiments and give them to you. Thanks again for your response.

Why do you not have any primary literature?

Hi Nygreenguy. You have not yet responded to any of my arguments, even though I attempted to clarify them.

From the time I responded to you, you didnt clarify anything except say you would give more references to sources in the future. You didnt give me much to reply to.

For example, do you believe that when one gene mutates that the mutation may affect more than one organism?

If the organism has offspring.

Do you believe that the giraffe obtained its long neck from stretching its neck to reach leaves on high branches? If not, how do you account for a giraffe’s long neck? Do you believe the long neck in giraffes resulted from mutations and natural selection alone?

Yes.

Do you believe that mutations cause steady improvements in a creature or do you believe that mutations could either improve or decrease a creature's ability to survive and that natural selection selects those creatures that are best suited to survive in their environment?

The latter.

Rather than just criticize my arguments, I would appreciate some type of beneficial response.

If I dont have your sources and your full argument in context, I cant give a beneficial response. The more you give, the more I can give!

Do you believe there are no limitations as to the amount of mutations a genome can sustain and not be negatively affected or do you believe that a creature can sustain an unlimited amount of changes without being negatively affected?

As for individuals, no. Just from a statistical standpoint, increasing mutations in a single individual will eventually be fatal. Luckily though, evolution works through generations.

Have you ever read some of the laboratory experiments on this subject?

On mutation rates? Yes.

Have you ever studied Hox genes?

My undergrad was focused on plant microbiology and biotechnology, so yes.

If so, do you know what most likely would happen to a genome if a hox gene is mutated?

Have you ever read about conserved vs. unconserved regions of the DNA?

Have you read any scientific documents that describe what occurs when a gene is mutated? These are not hypothetical (straw man) arguments but scientific research

Hypotheticals are not stawman arguments. A strawman argument is when you attack an argument that has never been made. For example, you attack the concept of many mutations in single individual. Evolution doesnt even predict this. Evolution deals with many mutations over generations. By attacking mutation in a single individual, you are attacking an argument never made. This is a strawman.

As for "genes being mutated", yes I have read the literature. There is no need to ask me if I have read about the most common things in genetics because I probably have. If you wish to comment on such cases, just provide your argument (with sources if you make a specific claim) and I will ask if I need further clarification!

Hi nygreenguy. My comment was directed to goat, however, I appreciate your comments. Your responses were very informative. Thank you for responding line by line, rather than make general comments. The few experiments I read that were conducted on fruit flies I thought were about determining how mutations would affect the creature. For example, in the book, “Why Evolution Works (And Creationism Fails)� by Matt Young and Paul Storde (2009), discuss mutating genes in fruit flies to determine what effects it will have on the species. The text does not say very much about trying to determine what genes do. The text spoke of genetic research in regards to checking for mutations (page 107-108). Regarding your response “As for individuals, no. Just from a statistical standpoint, increasing mutations in a single individual will eventually be fatal. Luckily though, evolution works through generations� to my comment regarding limitations to the amount of mutations a genome could cause debilitating results, I was referring to multiple offspring during many generations. I read that if hox genes are experimentally mutated that no beneficial organisms have resulted. This is because living organisms depend on multiple systems and genes. A single hox gene affects more than one organism. (Explore Evolution—The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (2007) p. 109). Do you know if any other research has been conducted that disproves this conclusion? Pierre-Paul Grasse has stated that through his research, he concluded that mutations in successive generations do not result in any extent of change. He states that genes only permit very limited changes in a species. Mutations may result in a change within a species, or occasionally result in a new species, however, despite extensive attempts by researchers, mutations do not appear to be able to produce fully new life forms. (Pierre-Paul Grasse. 1973. English translation 1977. Evolution of Living Organisms. Academic Press, New York & London. p. 225). Do you know if any other research has disproved this?
I have not read about conserved vs. unconserved regions of the DNA. I will check it out. Thanks for the information. Thanks for explaining what a straw man is. I did know what it refers to, however, I forgot. From your response, you appear to be well qualified to comment on biological discussions.

Hi nygreenguy. Previously, regarding the giraffe’s long neck I asked, “How do you suppose this [a giraffe’s long neck with auxiliary pumps] may have developed?� You responded with: “Same way as anything else. As the giraffe neck grew, the ability to get blood to the brain became a limiting factor, but as those "pumps" evolved, they allowed for longer necks. It is co-evolution of traits.� My understanding of the theory of evolution is that small, seemingly insufficient mutations occur in a creature, whether beneficial or detrimental, and then through multiple generations and mutations, an organism obtains some form of change. Then, natural selection will determine whether the change is good or bad for the creature. If good, natural selection will allow the creature to continue by allowing it to produce offspring. If the change (a trait) is determined by natural selection to be detrimental, natural selection will cause the creature to become extinct, at least in the environment where the creature was not able to adapt and survive. Since mutations are not directional, that is, do not always cause positive changes, how would an organism “know� it needed something else in addition to the change that had already occurred in the creature? We both agree that Lamarckianism has been proven false back in the 1880s by August Weismann, that a change does not occur in an organism as a result of “use or disuse.� Changes (mutations) are not the result of a need. Mutations and changes are not always positive.
In our example of the giraffe, as mutations continue to cause the neck of a giraffe to grow longer, how would pumps develop at the same time (co-evolution) that would allow the creature to continue with the longer than usual neck? You are saying that it is co-evolution that permitted this, as it is obvious that if the giraffe obtained a long neck before having the auxiliary pumps, it would not survive. If the giraffe obtained auxiliary pumps before obtaining its long neck, the pumps most likely would have been useless, and possibly detrimental. How would mutations know that the giraffe would need auxiliary pumps? I suppose we would both agree that mutations do not “know� what is needed, as mutations randomly occur, whether good or bad. I would appreciate more information as to how the giraffe’s auxiliary pumps could have evolved at the same time (simultaneously) as it’s long neck. Would you provide more information as to how co-evolution works?

[nygreenguy]

Hi nygreenguy.

Greeting! First off, can I ask that you try to break up your responses into separate paragraphs or lines? a big block of text is difficult to read!

Previously, regarding the giraffe’s long neck I asked, “How do you suppose this [a giraffe’s long neck with auxiliary pumps] may have developed?� You responded with: “Same way as anything else. As the giraffe neck grew, the ability to get blood to the brain became a limiting factor, but as those "pumps" evolved, they allowed for longer necks. It is co-evolution of traits.� My understanding of the theory of evolution is that small, seemingly insufficient mutations occur in a creature, whether beneficial or detrimental, and then through multiple generations and mutations, an organism obtains some form of change.

Well, here is the thing, a mutation can only be one of three things. Beneficial, harmful, or neutral. Excluding neutral, there is a component of magnitude for all of these but it MUST fall in one of these three categories.

Then, natural selection will determine whether the change is good or bad for the creature. If good, natural selection will allow the creature to continue by allowing it to produce offspring. If the change (a trait) is determined by natural selection to be detrimental, natural selection will cause the creature to become extinct, at least in the environment where the creature was not able to adapt and survive.

No, natural selection doesn't determine which traits are good and bad. Natural selection is the result of the traits which are good or bad, it is a longer process which is the result OF these mutations. Natural selection doesnt determine the effect, or "fitness" of a trait, it is the explanation/mechanism of how/why some species survive and some fail. The mutation and the environment determine if the change is beneficial or harmful.

Since mutations are not directional, that is, do not always cause positive changes, how would an organism “know� it needed something else in addition to the change that had already occurred in the creature?

It doesnt "know" anything and it doesnt NEED to know anything. If the giraffe gets a longer neck and the "pumps" dont keep up, then that population of giraffes with either stop evolving a longer neck or die. Its relative fitness is what drives the coevolution of the traits.

We both agree that Lamarckianism has been proven false back in the 1880s by August Weismann, that a change does not occur in an organism as a result of “use or disuse.� Changes (mutations) are not the result of a need. Mutations and changes are not always positive.
In our example of the giraffe, as mutations continue to cause the neck of a giraffe to grow longer, how would pumps develop at the same time (co-evolution) that would allow the creature to continue with the longer than usual neck? You are saying that it is co-evolution that permitted this, as it is obvious that if the giraffe obtained a long neck before having the auxiliary pumps, it would not survive. If the giraffe obtained auxiliary pumps before obtaining its long neck, the pumps most likely would have been useless, and possibly detrimental. How would mutations know that the giraffe would need auxiliary pumps?

they wouldnt "know". This concept of "knowing" should be totally discarded. Mutations in the genome are mostly random. Those mutations which stick around, those are NOT random.

Instead, the mutations which are beneficial STAY in the population. Then as the neck grows, if the blood pumps start to evolve, this would benefit the giraffe meaning this trait would stay in the population. Because some of these new mutations create differential reproductive success, they become more dominant in the population (fitness). So there is no "knowledge", it is just a function of that which allows the giraffe to compete better in its environment.

I suppose we would both agree that mutations do not “know� what is needed, as mutations randomly occur, whether good or bad. I would appreciate more information as to how the giraffe’s auxiliary pumps could have evolved at the same time (simultaneously) as it’s long neck. Would you provide more information as to how co-evolution works?

Lets take a subject I am more familiar with and that is plants. Take plant pollination for example. Hawk moths are a species of moth with REALLY long mouthparts. Many hawk moths tend to only pollinate a single species of flowers and the flowers are only pollinated by a single species of hawk hoths because those are the only creatures with mouthparts capable of reaching their pollen.

Now, why would both species evolve together and how would this be beneficial? Well, a scenario would be the flower was pollinated by many insects. The problem with this is you end up having your pollen going to tons of other plants which ends up being wasted. The flower began to change its morphology developing into a deep tube. As it did this, it reduced the species which could pollinate it. The hawk moth, due to selective pressures, developed a mouthpart that kept up with the development of the flower.

So in every insect there is variation. As the flower developed deeper and deeper corolla, those hawk moths with the longer mouthparts were selected. As this co-evolution was happening, it worked out that having a single species of moth pollinate the flower meant that that species would be guaranteed to deliver the pollen ONLY to another flower of the same species. For the hawk mouth, it guaranteed it a source of food with no competition. So these small random changes, working in conjunction with each other THROUGH natural selection allowed the co-evolution of these traits.

Same goes for the giraffe neck. The neck never got longer than the individual could survive with so it died. The neck could NEVER get longer unless the "pumps" also began to evolve. So the neck would get a little longer and either the pups would evolve, or the neck would stop growing. If the pumps evolved a little, the neck could get a little longer. This is a repeating process.

We also see this in technology. First computers were huge. Then we began to develop better processors and they began to shrink. Then we get to a point to where processors cant go any faster, but the development of better RAM allowed an advancement in computers without increasing the processor. Then processors got better, ram got better, then we were bottlenecked by graphics. So we got graphics cards. All of these things co-evolving together, limited each other, but also allowed the evolution and development of each other.

[Critical_Thinker]

Hi nygreenguy.

Greeting! First off, can I ask that you try to break up your responses into separate paragraphs or lines? a big block of text is difficult to read!

Previously, regarding the giraffe’s long neck I asked, “How do you suppose this [a giraffe’s long neck with auxiliary pumps] may have developed?� You responded with: “Same way as anything else. As the giraffe neck grew, the ability to get blood to the brain became a limiting factor, but as those "pumps" evolved, they allowed for longer necks. It is co-evolution of traits.� My understanding of the theory of evolution is that small, seemingly insufficient mutations occur in a creature, whether beneficial or detrimental, and then through multiple generations and mutations, an organism obtains some form of change.

Well, here is the thing, a mutation can only be one of three things. Beneficial, harmful, or neutral. Excluding neutral, there is a component of magnitude for all of these but it MUST fall in one of these three categories.

Then, natural selection will determine whether the change is good or bad for the creature. If good, natural selection will allow the creature to continue by allowing it to produce offspring. If the change (a trait) is determined by natural selection to be detrimental, natural selection will cause the creature to become extinct, at least in the environment where the creature was not able to adapt and survive.

No, natural selection doesn't determine which traits are good and bad. Natural selection is the result of the traits which are good or bad, it is a longer process which is the result OF these mutations. Natural selection doesnt determine the effect, or "fitness" of a trait, it is the explanation/mechanism of how/why some species survive and some fail. The mutation and the environment determine if the change is beneficial or harmful.

Since mutations are not directional, that is, do not always cause positive changes, how would an organism “know� it needed something else in addition to the change that had already occurred in the creature?

It doesnt "know" anything and it doesnt NEED to know anything. If the giraffe gets a longer neck and the "pumps" dont keep up, then that population of giraffes with either stop evolving a longer neck or die. Its relative fitness is what drives the coevolution of the traits.

We both agree that Lamarckianism has been proven false back in the 1880s by August Weismann, that a change does not occur in an organism as a result of “use or disuse.� Changes (mutations) are not the result of a need. Mutations and changes are not always positive.
In our example of the giraffe, as mutations continue to cause the neck of a giraffe to grow longer, how would pumps develop at the same time (co-evolution) that would allow the creature to continue with the longer than usual neck? You are saying that it is co-evolution that permitted this, as it is obvious that if the giraffe obtained a long neck before having the auxiliary pumps, it would not survive. If the giraffe obtained auxiliary pumps before obtaining its long neck, the pumps most likely would have been useless, and possibly detrimental. How would mutations know that the giraffe would need auxiliary pumps?

they wouldnt "know". This concept of "knowing" should be totally discarded. Mutations in the genome are mostly random. Those mutations which stick around, those are NOT random.

Instead, the mutations which are beneficial STAY in the population. Then as the neck grows, if the blood pumps start to evolve, this would benefit the giraffe meaning this trait would stay in the population. Because some of these new mutations create differential reproductive success, they become more dominant in the population (fitness). So there is no "knowledge", it is just a function of that which allows the giraffe to compete better in its environment.

I suppose we would both agree that mutations do not “know� what is needed, as mutations randomly occur, whether good or bad. I would appreciate more information as to how the giraffe’s auxiliary pumps could have evolved at the same time (simultaneously) as it’s long neck. Would you provide more information as to how co-evolution works?

Lets take a subject I am more familiar with and that is plants. Take plant pollination for example. Hawk moths are a species of moth with REALLY long mouthparts. Many hawk moths tend to only pollinate a single species of flowers and the flowers are only pollinated by a single species of hawk hoths because those are the only creatures with mouthparts capable of reaching their pollen.

Now, why would both species evolve together and how would this be beneficial? Well, a scenario would be the flower was pollinated by many insects. The problem with this is you end up having your pollen going to tons of other plants which ends up being wasted. The flower began to change its morphology developing into a deep tube. As it did this, it reduced the species which could pollinate it. The hawk moth, due to selective pressures, developed a mouthpart that kept up with the development of the flower.

So in every insect there is variation. As the flower developed deeper and deeper corolla, those hawk moths with the longer mouthparts were selected. As this co-evolution was happening, it worked out that having a single species of moth pollinate the flower meant that that species would be guaranteed to deliver the pollen ONLY to another flower of the same species. For the hawk mouth, it guaranteed it a source of food with no competition. So these small random changes, working in conjunction with each other THROUGH natural selection allowed the co-evolution of these traits.

Same goes for the giraffe neck. The neck never got longer than the individual could survive with so it died. The neck could NEVER get longer unless the "pumps" also began to evolve. So the neck would get a little longer and either the pups would evolve, or the neck would stop growing. If the pumps evolved a little, the neck could get a little longer. This is a repeating process.

We also see this in technology. First computers were huge. Then we began to develop better processors and they began to shrink. Then we get to a point to where processors cant go any faster, but the development of better RAM allowed an advancement in computers without increasing the processor. Then processors got better, ram got better, then we were bottlenecked by graphics. So we got graphics cards. All of these things co-evolving together, limited each other, but also allowed the evolution and development of each other.

Hi mygreenguy. I really appreciate your help. You are providing a great of information and clarifying many questions I have regarding evolution. As a result, more questions arose. You apparently believe that natural selection is not a driver but the result of what survives and what doesn’t. The bottom line is that natural selection is the explanation/mechanism (as you say) of what organisms survive to the next generation and which ones don’t. I really do not see a great difference between our definitions. We both agree that natural selection is a mechanism that determines whether a species continues in a certain environment or not. I agree that mutation and the environment determine if a change is beneficial or harmful.

Regarding giraffes developing long necks, I agree that in the process of developing a longer neck, if the “pumps� (more precisely, sponges, valves, expanding or shrinking blood vessels, thick muscle walls, etc.) didn’t keep up with the growth of the neck, then the giraffe would somehow either stop growing a longer neck or, if its neck continued to grow longer and longer, it would most likely die as it would not be able to get blood between its heart and brain sufficiently enough for it to survive.

I do not believe you are saying that the giraffe’s neck would grow so long and then stop growing for a generation or more and then a pump (sponge, valve, thicker muscle wall) that was needed then developed, as this is not co-evolution. I believe you are saying that as the giraffe’s neck grew longer and longer, pumps (sponges or valves) somehow developed simultaneously that controls the exact flow of blood necessary for the giraffe with the longer neck to survive. If this did not somehow happen, then the giraffes with the longer necks would have simply died out and would have become extinct.

I believe that we both agree that mutations occur infrequently (especially beneficial mutations) and are non-directional, that is, they could either be neutral, beneficial or detrimental (harmful) to an organism. If this is true, how could the necessary mutations, being rare and non-directional, develop pumps (sponges values, thick muscle walls) to form with the exact blood pressure regulation system necessary and to occur at precisely the right times as was needed in the development of the giraffe’s long neck as it became longer and longer? Would we say that it was just luck?

We would agree that necessity does not cause a trait to appear in an organism, however, you stated: “its relative fitness is what drives co-evolution of the traits.� This sounds as though necessity is what causes co-evolution. Would you please clarify this?

You mentioned hawk moths and plant pollination illustrating co-evolution. In this scenario, the hawk moths evolved mouths that could pollinate a certain flower, as the flower evolved. Therefore, both the hawk moth and the flower benefited. I would agree that this is a good example of co-evolution. The hawk moth is a separate and totally different organism than a flowering plant. They evolved at the same time but not as one organism. I do not see how the example of the hawk moth and the flowering plant relates to a giraffe developing pumps, except that in both cases all were able to survive as a result of the changes. You mentioned: “The hawk moth, due to selective pressures, developed a mouthpart that kept up with the development of the flower.� As I mentioned previously, this sounds like necessity caused the hawk moth to develop a specific mouth shape to keep up with the development of the flower.

You used the analogy of the development of the giraffe’s long neck with the advances in computers. With the development of the giraffe’s long neck, you would say that it was not caused by any intelligence, that is, no designer. However, with the progression of computers, intellectual engineers caused computers to become more and more efficient.

[Autodidact]

I believe that we both agree that mutations occur infrequently (especially beneficial mutations) and are non-directional, that is, they could either be neutral, beneficial or detrimental (harmful) to an organism.

This is not correct. Mutations are common. Every organism has some mutations, including you.

[Critical_Thinker]

I believe that we both agree that mutations occur infrequently (especially beneficial mutations) and are non-directional, that is, they could either be neutral, beneficial or detrimental (harmful) to an organism.

This is not correct. Mutations are common. Every organism has some mutations, including you.

Hi Autodidact. Thanks for your comment. I agree that even within my own body there are mutations and as I get older and older, I will obtain even more mutations. It may be true that mutations often occur in an organism, however, I read (I am no expert in this field) it is rare that a mutation would be harmful to the organism, and even rarer to be beneficial. Once in a while, at random (about once in ten million times during cell division) the genes make a copying mistake. These mistakes are known as mutations, which are mostly harmful. They lead to a weakened plant, or a sick or deformed creature. They do not persist within the species, because they are eliminated by natural selection. Copying errors normally produce negative results. If copying errors were to accumulate in a species, instead of improving, it would eventually degenerate and die. But geneticists have discovered a self-correcting system. Many mutations may be neither beneficial nor harmful to an organism, being neutral. Mutations are rare, occurring once in about every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule. Mutations are random, not directional, and nearly always represent a disadvantage from the point of view of the struggle for existence. Therefore they would most likely be quickly eliminated by natural election. Only mutations that help the organism survive in their particular environment are kept by natural selection. Neutral mutations may or may not stay around to turn into beneficial mutations later on, but are not selected until they are beneficial. Source: Del Ratzsch. 1996. The Battle of Beginnings—Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. InterVarsity Press. P. O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515. Pp.14-36

In another source I read that mutations are “mistakes� in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a “compare – correct� process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation “gets out� so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a [one] mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript. Source: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Reason1

If the above information is true, then beneficial mutations are not as common as one might think, especially mutations that would cause a better advantage for the organism than it previously had before the mutation. Thanks again for your comments.

[Goat]

I believe that we both agree that mutations occur infrequently (especially beneficial mutations) and are non-directional, that is, they could either be neutral, beneficial or detrimental (harmful) to an organism.

This is not correct. Mutations are common. Every organism has some mutations, including you.

Hi Autodidact. Thanks for your comment. I agree that even within my own body there are mutations and as I get older and older, I will obtain even more mutations. It may be true that mutations often occur in an organism, however, I read (I am no expert in this field) it is rare that a mutation would be harmful to the organism, and even rarer to be beneficial. Once in a while, at random (about once in ten million times during cell division) the genes make a copying mistake. These mistakes are known as mutations, which are mostly harmful. They lead to a weakened plant, or a sick or deformed creature. They do not persist within the species, because they are eliminated by natural selection. Copying errors normally produce negative results. If copying errors were to accumulate in a species, instead of improving, it would eventually degenerate and die. But geneticists have discovered a self-correcting system. Many mutations may be neither beneficial nor harmful to an organism, being neutral. Mutations are rare, occurring once in about every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule. Mutations are random, not directional, and nearly always represent a disadvantage from the point of view of the struggle for existence. Therefore they would most likely be quickly eliminated by natural election. Only mutations that help the organism survive in their particular environment are kept by natural selection. Neutral mutations may or may not stay around to turn into beneficial mutations later on, but are not selected until they are beneficial. Source: Del Ratzsch. 1996. The Battle of Beginnings—Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. InterVarsity Press. P. O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515. Pp.14-36

In another source I read that mutations are “mistakes� in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a “compare – correct� process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation “gets out� so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a [one] mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript. Source: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Reason1

If the above information is true, then beneficial mutations are not as common as one might think, especially mutations that would cause a better advantage for the organism than it previously had before the mutation. Thanks again for your comments.

You were also born with some differences from your parents that are the results of mutations in your base DNA. .. not accumulated mutations of individual cells. You are using some equivocation there..

These DNA variations you have that neither of your parents have can be passed on to your offspring (if any). Those are the mutations she was referring to.

[Critical_Thinker]

Critical: Are you asserting that science has NOT observed any new species coming into existence?

btw, are you familiar with ring species?

Hi Autodidact. No, I am not claiming that new species were never observed coming into existence. I believe the definition of a species is defined as “a group of individuals that resemble one
another more than they resemble members of other groups� and “as a group of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.“ The point that I was attempting to make is that some changes may occur in a species, and sometimes even developing a new species, however, there are limits as to how far the changes could go. Many varieties of fruit flies may evolve but it may not be possible for a fruit fly to gradually, over multiple generations, became a different creature (other than another arthropod) such as having a body plan that a spider or a tick has. I am not aware of any such observance.
In other words, minor, seemingly, insignificant changes may occur in a creature (micro-evolution), but have these minor changes ever been observed that have led up to what would be considered a major change (macro-evolution)? By major change, I mean a fruit fly gradually becoming a spider or a tick. Do you know if it has ever been observed that any creature gradually evolved into a different species with a different body plan?
I am not familiar with ring species. Would you elaborate on this?

[Autodidact]

Critical: Are you asserting that science has NOT observed any new species coming into existence?

btw, are you familiar with ring species?

Hi Autodidact. No, I am not claiming that new species were never observed coming into existence. I believe the definition of a species is defined as “a group of individuals that resemble one
another more than they resemble members of other groups� and “as a group of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.“ The point that I was attempting to make is that some changes may occur in a species, and sometimes even developing a new species, however, there are limits as to how far the changes could go. Many varieties of fruit flies may evolve but it may not be possible for a fruit fly to gradually, over multiple generations, became a different creature (other than another arthropod) such as having a body plan that a spider or a tick has. I am not aware of any such observance.
In other words, minor, seemingly, insignificant changes may occur in a creature (micro-evolution), but have these minor changes ever been observed that have led up to what would be considered a major change (macro-evolution)? By major change, I mean a fruit fly gradually becoming a spider or a tick. Do you know if it has ever been observed that any creature gradually evolved into a different species with a different body plan?
I am not familiar with ring species. Would you elaborate on this?

You would never observe a fruit fly giving birth to a rutabaga. Evolution predicts that cannot happen. What you would observe is this: A new species arises from descent with modification plus natural selection. You agree that this happens. Another new species arises from that one, by the same process. And another from that one. At some point, the new species is so different from the original one that scientists would say, "This is too different to just classify as a different species. At this point we are going to have to call it a new genus." And this happens again, and again, and again, until you have a new family. And so forth.

So, by its nature, it cannot be directly observed. Only the individual steps can be, and have been, observed. The rest must be deduced from the evidence. The evidence made it clear that this is what happens. I can review that evidence with you if you like; it's interesting and massive.

[Critical_Thinker]

I believe that we both agree that mutations occur infrequently (especially beneficial mutations) and are non-directional, that is, they could either be neutral, beneficial or detrimental (harmful) to an organism.

This is not correct. Mutations are common. Every organism has some mutations, including you.

Hi Autodidact. Thanks for your comment. I agree that even within my own body there are mutations and as I get older and older, I will obtain even more mutations. It may be true that mutations often occur in an organism, however, I read (I am no expert in this field) it is rare that a mutation would be harmful to the organism, and even rarer to be beneficial. Once in a while, at random (about once in ten million times during cell division) the genes make a copying mistake. These mistakes are known as mutations, which are mostly harmful. They lead to a weakened plant, or a sick or deformed creature. They do not persist within the species, because they are eliminated by natural selection. Copying errors normally produce negative results. If copying errors were to accumulate in a species, instead of improving, it would eventually degenerate and die. But geneticists have discovered a self-correcting system. Many mutations may be neither beneficial nor harmful to an organism, being neutral. Mutations are rare, occurring once in about every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule. Mutations are random, not directional, and nearly always represent a disadvantage from the point of view of the struggle for existence. Therefore they would most likely be quickly eliminated by natural election. Only mutations that help the organism survive in their particular environment are kept by natural selection. Neutral mutations may or may not stay around to turn into beneficial mutations later on, but are not selected until they are beneficial. Source: Del Ratzsch. 1996. The Battle of Beginnings—Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. InterVarsity Press. P. O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515. Pp.14-36

In another source I read that mutations are “mistakes� in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a “compare – correct� process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation “gets out� so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a [one] mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript. Source: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Reason1

If the above information is true, then beneficial mutations are not as common as one might think, especially mutations that would cause a better advantage for the organism than it previously had before the mutation. Thanks again for your comments.

You were also born with some differences from your parents that are the results of mutations in your base DNA. .. not accumulated mutations of individual cells. You are using some equivocation there..

These DNA variations you have that neither of your parents have can be passed on to your offspring (if any). Those are the mutations she was referring to.

Hi Goat. Thank you for the clarification. I agree that the sex cells used for breeding (gamete) may also change during meiosis from the genes of the parents to their offspring. Hence, the offspring will not be identical to its parents. Most likely what you and Autodidact are referring to are subtle changes that over multiple generations would result in a major change. But I do not believe the immediate offspring most likely would or could result in a different species than its parents. Do you know of any occurrences where subtle changes in an offspring, eventually, through multiple generations, led to a major change in a creature, as a result of meiosis?