Isn't evolution....?

[Willum]

So usually scientists are mocked for evolution because no one has even seen an ape transform into a man.

Though this would be countered by watching caterpillars transform into butterflies, antlions into lacewings, grubs to beetles, tadpoles to frogs, and so on, if science didn't point out to Jews and Christians that these were the same animal.

But if we examine this with the "giving the religious what they want," approach:
Isn't simply learning something an example of evolution? Putting on muscle mass - is that not an evolution, in the broadest sense?

Is not Joe Piscopo a very different animal now than when he was on SNL?
As we learn and grow in response to the environment, are we not evolving exactly as a religious person would say we must, in order for evolution to be true, according to their standards?

Even, in some sense, by scientific standards? Animals have adopted with different characteristic within regions, and remain the same species.

So isn't all of this really, all part of the same picture. Adaptation leads to advantage, advantage leads to acclimatization, acclimatization leads to evolution in the technical sense... but are they really different?

I propose that learning and musculature are both an example of and a result of evolution.

Counters?

[Willum]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

I know that, and you know that, but the Creationist among us state that the want to see an ape become a man.

They want evolution to be something it is not so that they can say, "apes don't become men, therefore we were created, not evolved."

With DNA changing in lifetime, one can now say that, although apes don't transform into men, men are not the same genetically as they were born, therefore Creationists unrealistic expectations of evolution are true, to a degree.

As to there not being enough variation over the course of a lifetime, just when do you think evolution occurs? At the moment of conception? Negative, throughout a creatures lifetime must be a part of when evolution occurs, and that evolution must be expressed in procreation.

So a parent has one child, the parents DNA changes and has another. The children will be different, if one or the other has a survival characteristic leading to advantage, that one will be more successful than the other. If that small change from one time to another contributed positively or negatively, then that is a part of it.

[Neatras]

As to there not being enough variation over the course of a lifetime, just when do you think evolution occurs? At the moment of conception? Negative, throughout a creatures lifetime must be a part of when evolution occurs, and that evolution must be expressed in procreation.

It IS at the moment of conception, because that's the period in which chromosomal swapping occurs and the offspring's entire genome is produced. If you want to INSIST that evolution occurs "throughout a creature's lifetime," then you must DEMONSTRATE THIS WITH EVIDENCE.

So a parent has one child, the parents DNA changes and has another. The children will be different, if one or the other has a survival characteristic leading to advantage, that one will be more successful than the other. If that small change from one time to another contributed positively or negatively, then that is a part of it.

Can you demonstrate even a single instance where this has occurred? Where an accumulated genetic anomaly in the parent's genes was passed to the offspring? More importantly, is this change even worth mentioning given the fact that an offspring's genome will contain mutations at conception?

I see what you're trying to put across. I really do. But the changes you are describing are full-body changes down to the very last cell. Those are ridiculous by nature. What IS observable is that the rates at which methylation (the changes) occurs is inheritable. That's because it's encoded in genes that are included in germ cells. Methylation tends to occur in clusters, meaning there's even less chance methylation will occur in a germ cell.

The RATE at which methylation occurs is an inheritable trait. The methylation that occurs is often not heritable due to the fact that only a certain part of the body is affected, and these changes aren't heritable.

Now then, with THAT out of the way: You're technically correct. IF a germ cell experiences methylation, then whatever encoded information will be altered. And IF that cell then goes on to produce offspring, then the methylated genes have a CHANCE at being swapped in to form the germline cell's genome.

But I doubt any biologist in all of history would ever agree that this even affects evolutionary trends. You're fighting an uphill battle with the most ineffectual argument ever. In fact, it's more likely that Cosmic Background Radiation accounts for a larger factor than methylation (constant bombardment of low levels of radiation can cause damage to genetic codes). And that alone would already be an absurdly small amount. This isn't like Endogenous Retroviruses, which make up 8% of the genome. The odds of methylation affecting evolutionary trends in any circumstances would be orders of magnitude more ineffective.

That said, I would like to see more research done on this. If it can be demonstrated that methylation drives evolution, then that would be a substantial point to conduct experiments. But you're pushing this entire argument through nothing but speculation. And then getting combative when we point out the flaws in trying to use these largely unrelated facts to somehow drive an agenda to stump creationists. There are far better arguments to use that are more substantiated. Pick your battles, this isn't a hill to die on because the science isn't even remotely in yet.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

I know that, and you know that, but the Creationist among us state that the want to see an ape become a man.

They want evolution to be something it is not so that they can say, "apes don't become men, therefore we were created, not evolved."

With DNA changing in lifetime, one can now say that, although apes don't transform into men, men are not the same genetically as they were born, therefore Creationists unrealistic expectations of evolution are true, to a degree.

Except changes to an individual that cannot be passed on to future generations is NOT evolution. That's the point I was trying to make. Most of us do undergo changes to our DNA, but if that change is copied in a somatic cell it can't be passed on. It has to be copied in a gamete cell (sperm or egg). In women this is near impossible because all the eggs a woman has she is already born with. If one of the eggs is mutated somehow then she could pass on a mutated strand of DNA. Since men are always making sperm, there is a chance of changes in somatic cells finding their way into a gamete cell, but it is unlikely due to how males make sperm.

As to there not being enough variation over the course of a lifetime, just when do you think evolution occurs? At the moment of conception? Negative, throughout a creatures lifetime must be a part of when evolution occurs, and that evolution must be expressed in procreation.

Mutations can be present in one of the gamete cells (sperm or egg). There can also be mutations that happen right after conception, when the entire zygote is still all stem cells and nothing specialized has happened yet so all the cells are just exact copies (I think that is called somatic mutation).

Please read here for more information: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutation ... nemutation

So a parent has one child, the parents DNA changes and has another. The children will be different, if one or the other has a survival characteristic leading to advantage, that one will be more successful than the other. If that small change from one time to another contributed positively or negatively, then that is a part of it.

Only if those DNA changes occur in a reproductive cell!

[Willum]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

Well I can see the eggs-cell argument.

I don't follow for sperm, for exactly the reasons you mention. In fact, I further be suspicious and would suspect that evolution (whether we call it that or not) occurs every time sperm cells are made. There is natural variation between each, it seems unlikely that each sperm-cell, since it is different isn't a part of the natural selection process.

I read your post, read your link, and don't understand why you're coming down on the opposite side - especially when you consider we are "broadening" our definition of evolution, to consider it what religious people want it to be: apes becoming men.

Though again - no apes becoming men, but men becoming slightly different men over the course of a life-time, and now that you have mentioned it, sperm-cells.

[Neatras]

In fact, I further be suspicious and would suspect that evolution (whether we call it that or not) occurs every time sperm cells are made. There is natural variation between each, it seems unlikely that each sperm-cell, since it is different isn't a part of the natural selection process.

Willum, you're trying too hard to make evolutionary theory palatable to creationists.

YES. Mutations and variation occur for every single sperm. Because the development of cells is inherently filled with deviations from the "original" genome. But you're trying to break apart all the different steps of reproduction in an attempt to make the argument that evolution happens to every organism, at every stage of every component of their life.

Reproduction, from the development of the reproductive cells, to the fertilization of the egg, to the swapping of chromosomes, to the development of the zygote, to the gestation and birth of a child, is all essentially one step in the evolutionary process. Generating random attributes and genetic features that will be selected for to produce trends in the genetic drift of a population.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees, and need to take a step back to review what you actually know about evolutionary theory before you start speculating about changing the definition of the entire scientific process just so you can rhetorically trap creationists into admitting evolution exists. It's a wild goose chase to begin with, and you're not actually producing any scientific content. I'm sorry.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 15 by Neatras]

Can you demonstrate even a single instance where this has occurred? Where an accumulated genetic anomaly in the parent's genes was passed to the offspring? More importantly, is this change even worth mentioning given the fact that an offspring's genome will contain mutations at conception?

I can not conceive of a way to distinguish the two. However, we can point to genetic changes from fruit flies. Maybe a geneticist has definitive tricks, but I don't see it being a significant point for that reason.
_______________________

My step back is this:
Creationist often pooh-pooh evolution because apes don't give birth to men.

But, if we are actually becoming different people genetically through the course of our lives, even though this isn't what evolution intends, then that takes one silly argument away from creationists doesn't it?

Like I am fond of quipping: Science demonstrates that a caterpillar becoming a butterfly isn't evolution, though this is what creationists want to be evolution, but now we can show what creationists WANT to be evolution, (though it is not) is actually occurring, things changing during life.

So, I am not really challenging the definition of evolution, I am challenging the pooh-pooh definition that creationists have of evolution, and saying: "look, what you want to see evolution do, is actually occurring."

A little bit of a difference.

I think this is why creationists have left the party.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 16 by Willum]

I'm much more comfortable with this now, however I think that the way you've gone about it up until this point has been exacerbating the problem of communication.

If you want to argue against what creationists think evolution is, it's sufficient to say, "We observe physical processes that run counter to the claims you make about reality." No need for word games there.

[Willum]

[Replying to Neatras]

So, Neat, I'll play the game on you"
"Apes don't become men! Evolution is wrong!"

Which is the conclusion of every debate, like it or not: I understand evolution is true (with agreeably less comprehension then yourself).

Telling them what evolution is,and explaining it has done no good for over 30 years, after it was an established fact. Or prior to that when it was a plain theory.

Don't you think this concept is a good foil against that kind of thinking?

Also, part of the trouble with with comms is that I learned something mid debate and was forced to change my stance. You had no small part in that, thank you!

[H.sapiens]

So usually scientists are mocked for evolution because no one has even seen an ape transform into a man.

No, the ones that are mocked are those who lack sufficient background to understand that humans are a form of ape. They are thus citing a transformation that is not claimed by anyone with a whit of scientific knowledge.

Though this would be countered by watching caterpillars transform into butterflies, antlions into lacewings, grubs to beetles, tadpoles to frogs, and so on, if science didn't point out to Jews and Christians that these were the same animal.

Insect metamorphosis is a result of evolution but individual metamorphosis incidents are not evolutionary in nature.

But if we examine this with the "giving the religious what they want," approach:
Isn't simply learning something an example of evolution? Putting on muscle mass - is that not an evolution, in the broadest sense?

The sense you are using evolution in does utter violence to the scientific meaning of the word. For there to be evolution there must be change in the genome over time and generations.

Is not Joe Piscopo a very different animal now than when he was on SNL?
As we learn and grow in response to the environment, are we not evolving exactly as a religious person would say we must, in order for evolution to be true, according to their standards?

Joe's DNA has not changed.

Even, in some sense, by scientific standards? Animals have adopted with different characteristic within regions, and remain the same species.

"Species" are a continuum and not a clear division. Please look up "Ring Species."

So isn't all of this really, all part of the same picture. Adaptation leads to advantage, advantage leads to acclimatization, acclimatization leads to evolution in the technical sense... but are they really different?

They are quite different, evolution is a change in the genome over time.

I propose that learning and musculature are both an example of and a result of evolution.

Counters?

That is because you have not the vaguest idea of what evolution, in a science framework, means. You are wasting everyone's time in a sophist's pursuit of semantics that is utterly empty of actual information.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

Well I can see the eggs-cell argument.

I don't follow for sperm, for exactly the reasons you mention. In fact, I further be suspicious and would suspect that evolution (whether we call it that or not) occurs every time sperm cells are made. There is natural variation between each, it seems unlikely that each sperm-cell, since it is different isn't a part of the natural selection process.

Oh I totally agree. Millions of sperm are made a day, you know that there has to be mutations in there, on top of the variation that already exists between each as you state.

I read your post, read your link, and don't understand why you're coming down on the opposite side - especially when you consider we are "broadening" our definition of evolution, to consider it what religious people want it to be: apes becoming men.

Though again - no apes becoming men, but men becoming slightly different men over the course of a life-time, and now that you have mentioned it, sperm-cells.

I'm a stickler for detail, that's what drives my comments. Evolution is the process of change in a population, not an individual, and happens over many generations, not within one. And since some changes can't be passed on, they aren't evolution within the scientific definition as it exists today. I don't disagree that genomes within people change over their lifetime, that's a known fact. But I can't call that "evolution".