Evidence for macro-evolution

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Except that not once has anyone shown an example of said 'regression'.

e.g. Blind cave fish, lactose tolerance, white fur on polar bears.

Any time random mutation destroys the function of a gene, it's a regression in the functional information of that gene.
Yes it may have a neutral or even advantageous effect in a niche environment, but still an evolutionary regression of the genetic code- a dead end,
the functions can only be lost by this process, not built.

You cannot create a human from a single celled bacteria, by merely destroying functions in the bacteria.

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
e.g. Blind cave fish, lactose tolerance, white fur on polar bears.

Any time random mutation destroys the function of a gene, it's a regression in the functional information of that gene.
Yes it may have a neutral or even advantageous effect in a niche environment, but still an evolutionary regression of the genetic code- a dead end,
the functions can only be lost by this process, not built.

You cannot create a human from a single celled bacteria, by merely destroying functions in the bacteria.

Just calling those a regression is not showing how they're a regression.
If a population lives in a location where eyesight is not needed, than that is not a regression.
If a population drinks milk enough times throughout it history that they develop a resistance to any adverse effects it might have during digestion, that is not a regression.
If a population lives in an area where white fur is an advantage to survive, that is definitely not a regression.

It would be the switching off certain factors in the DNA, but if that switch allows the population to survive and thrive, then that is not a regression.

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
D

Darwin's model (not an ism) explains how adaption results from selection of characteristics. It does not provide a mechanism for the generation of new variation from which selection takes place. Such things (mutation) were not known when Darwin wrote his book.

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

"adaption results from selection of characteristics"
or we could equally say:

"characteristics result from the selection of adaptations"

It reminds me of an old study of morphine and why it creates drowsiness. Conclusion: 'By virtue of its dormitive properties'

But we agree, it does not provide a mechanism for new adaptations to select (in the macro sense), i.e. no explanation of actual evolution, only the distribution and outright elimination of that which has already somehow evolved.

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Just calling those a regression is not showing how they're a regression.
If a population lives in a location where eyesight is not needed, than that is not a regression.
If a population drinks milk enough times throughout it history that they develop a resistance to any adverse effects it might have during digestion, that is not a regression.
If a population lives in an area where white fur is an advantage to survive, that is definitely not a regression.

It would be the switching off certain factors in the DNA, but if that switch allows the population to survive and thrive, then that is not a regression.

There is a crucial distinction between what constitutes a selectable advantage, and what constitutes a genetic regression. One mutation may be an example of both at the same time.

If a genetic mutation destroys the ability of a polar bear to create pigment in it's fur, that may certainly be an advantage in a niche arctic environment, but the bear has lost functional information in the genetic sense. Not gained it, and evolution requires the gain of vast volumes of new functional genetic code, not merely the loss of it..

Likewise if random decay causes the exhaust of a car to fall off, you will have a faster, lighter, more fuel efficient car.
And this is not a regression on a race track.

So this is similarly an example of random 'mutation' providing an advantage in a niche environment- and we have lots of those.

But you understand why you cannot extrapolate this mechanism into an explanation for the exhaust itself, far less the rest of the car.

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
There is a crucial distinction between what constitutes a selectable advantage, and what constitutes a genetic regression. One mutation may be an example of both at the same time.

If a genetic mutation destroys the ability of a polar bear to create pigment in it's fur, that may certainly be an advantage in a niche arctic environment, but the bear has lost functional information in the genetic sense. Not gained it, and evolution requires the gain of vast volumes of new functional genetic code, not merely the loss of it..

Likewise if random decay causes the exhaust of a car to fall off, you will have a faster, lighter, more fuel efficient car.
And this is not a regression on a race track.

So this is similarly an example of random 'mutation' providing an advantage in a niche environment- and we have lots of those.

But you understand why you cannot extrapolate this mechanism into an explanation for the exhaust itself, far less the rest of the car.

But no genetic information is ever truly lost. It's just switched off. That's an entirely different thing.
Chickens still have the genes for teeth, it's just switched off because their niche means they do not need teeth.

You don't understand what you're arguing about. Again, just saying it's a regression isn't showing that is is a regression.

sfs · May 11, 2024

humbled_christian said:
I subscribe to natural selection but instead of random mutation I say directed mutation

Which mutations do you think are directed? All of them or just a few?

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But no genetic information is ever truly lost. It's just switched off. That's an entirely different thing.
Chickens still have the genes for teeth, it's just switched off because their niche means they do not need teeth.

You don't understand what you're arguing about. Again, just saying it's a regression isn't showing that is is a regression.

That's why I stipulated what I meant by regression; that it's a loss of functional information. Or to be more precise; specified information

Though your claim is not technically true- there are genetic deletions- I do take your point; if I scramble the letters after a game of scrabble, I can semantically argue that there is still just as much 'information' contained as there was before.

But we understand that we have lost specific information, because each letter not only represented a single point of information, but their precise arrangement specified new information above and beyond that already inherent in the medium.

Exactly the same with DNA, the arrangement of the nucleotides specify biological function like a bear's fur pigment.
When this is mutated, this specified information is lost, regardless of whether it's an advantage or gain/loss in the mere quantity of DNA.

And again, it's this specified, functional information that has to be CREATED in macro-evolution, not just destroyed as in micro-evolution

sfs · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
Yes, natural selection is a given. It's also just a filter, you cannot naturally select anything into existence.

You cannot naturally select a mutation into existence. You can very much naturally select a new trait into existence, based on selection operating on random mutations.

Guy Threepwood said:
That leaves only random chance to account for every evolutionary development between a single cell and a human being (according to ToE)

Your argument is based on equivocating between different meanings of 'anything' in the preceding sentence and your conclusion is patently wrong. If it were correct, it would apply equally well to human selective breeding, since selective breeding works with randomly occurring mutations. Human selection is only a filter -- you cannot humanly select anything into existence. Therefore the differences between a chihuahua and a great Dane are the result of random chance. Which is obvious nonsense.

sfs · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
Because random mutations destroy the specificity of the gene

Define 'specificity of the gene'. How do we measure it? I ask because on any meaning I can come up with, random mutations can either increase or decrease the specificity of a gene. They can also destroy genes entirely and create entirely new ones.

Overall, your assertions about genetics in this thread seem to have little connection to actual genetics.

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

sfs said:
You cannot naturally select a mutation into existence. You can very much naturally select a new trait into existence, based on selection operating on random mutations.

Your argument is based on equivocating between different meanings of 'anything' in the preceding sentence and your conclusion is patently wrong. If it were correct, it would apply equally well to human selective breeding, since selective breeding works with randomly occurring mutations. Human selection is only a filter -- you cannot humanly select anything into existence. Therefore the differences between a chihuahua and a great Dane are the result of random chance. Which is obvious nonsense.

The selected random mutations in dogs highlight the point about degradation through mutation, mutations destroy functions- a poodle has floppy ears because the specific genes needed to keep them erect ( more advantageous in the wild) have been damaged.
Similarly you need to take it to the groomer because the genes regulating hair length were destroyed (and this would kill the dog in the wild)

None of these genetic regressions do anything to explain how the dog evolved in the first place, exactly the opposite in fact.

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
That's why I stipulated what I meant by regression; that it's a loss of functional information. Or to be more precise; specified information

Though your claim is not technically true- there are genetic deletions- I do take your point; if I scramble the letters after a game of scrabble, I can semantically argue that there is still just as much 'information' contained as there was before.

But we understand that we have lost specific information, because each letter not only represented a single point of information, but their precise arrangement specified new information above and beyond that already inherent in the medium.

Exactly the same with DNA, the arrangement of the nucleotides specify biological function like a bear's fur pigment.
When this is mutated, this specified information is lost, regardless of whether it's an advantage or gain/loss in the mere quantity of DNA.

And again, it's this specified, functional information that has to be CREATED in macro-evolution, not just destroyed as in micro-evolution

But you're not describing a loss. The genetic function is still there. If it was a loss, it would be gone from the DNA. The genetics to give colour to fur, to lose the tolerance to lactose, to regain eyesight, is still there. It's just switched off. That is not a loss or a regression no matter how you want to describe it.

You're not describing or showing a loss or regression. You're just saying it is.

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

sfs said:
Define 'specificity of the gene'. How do we measure it? I ask because on any meaning I can come up with, random mutations can either increase or decrease the specificity of a gene. They can also destroy genes entirely and create entirely new ones.

Overall, your assertions about genetics in this thread seem to have little connection to actual genetics.

mutations destroy a previously specified function.

blind cave fish, polar bear fur, lactose tolerance- are all examples of specific genetic functions that mutations have destroyed- the genes no longer specify the function.

I suppose you could measure it by the length of the sequence required for a specific protein for example. A modest one may be hundreds of nucleotides long with a precise arrangement required to meet its function, or any function for that matter. And we can quantify the mathematic probability of such a thing ever being created by random mutation, it ain't good.

As an aside there are also some regulatory mutations that can alter say the curve in a dogs snout, by replication/deletion in a repeated sequence, (previously assumed to be 'junk DNA') so you could argue that's not so much a loss of functional information- but its a superficial change in regulation of a gene, rather than a mechanism for generation new proteins etc.

Hans Blaster · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
e.g. Blind cave fish, lactose tolerance, white fur on polar bears.

Any time random mutation destroys the function of a gene, it's a regression in the functional information of that gene.
Yes it may have a neutral or even advantageous effect in a niche environment, but still an evolutionary regression of the genetic code- a dead end,
the functions can only be lost by this process, not built.

Those are examples of evolution, but not the only ones. In these cases genes "break" (providing new information for selection to work with) and they turn out to be advantageous. (Not wasting resource creating unneeded features, etc.)

Guy Threepwood said:
You cannot create a human from a single celled bacteria, by merely destroying functions in the bacteria.

Not what evolution claims. (Human beings are actually grown from a single cell.)

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But you're not describing a loss. The genetic function is still there. If it was a loss, it would be gone from the DNA. The genetics to give colour to fur, to lose the tolerance to lactose, to regain eyesight, is still there. It's just switched off. That is not a loss or a regression no matter how you want to describe it.

You're not describing or showing a loss or regression. You're just saying it is.

The fish has lost it's ability to see. That's a loss of functional genetic information,

The functional information is NOT all still there, at least one crucial nucleotide has been mutated.

Calling that a 'switch' is a little misleading (not intentionally), it insinuates that this can just as easily be turned back on. The problem is you have thousands of 'switches' any one of which may destroy the function, but only one can turn it back on. But once the function is lost, each successive mutation is overwhelmingly more likely to hit a different switch, taking the gene ever further away from functionality.

I believe this is the case in cave fish, where 2 or more mutations have occurred, making it essentially impossible for the fish to ever regain sight.
Not only would the same two nucleotides have to be mutated, they'd have to be returned to their original values.
And this is with just 2 mutations- the fish gaining all the mutations required for sight by random mutation in the first place is mathematically absurd.

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
Those are examples of evolution, but not the only ones. In these cases genes "break" (providing new information for selection to work with) and they turn out to be advantageous. (Not wasting resource creating unneeded features, etc.)

examples of micro-evolution. Where a loss of genetic information is an advantage, and we have plenty of those.

That's all fine, its exactly what we would expect to see, no argument.

But the problem remains; you cannot create a human from a bacteria by simply breaking genetic functions of the bacteria.
You need to introduce new functional information, lots and lots of it.

Hans Blaster said:
Not what evolution claims. (Human beings are actually grown from a single cell.)

Through random mutation??

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
The fish has lost it's ability to see. That's a loss of functional genetic information,

The functional information is NOT all still there, at least one crucial nucleotide has been mutated.

Calling that a 'switch' is a little misleading (not intentionally), it insinuates that this can just as easily be turned back on. The problem is you have thousands of 'switches' any one of which may destroy the function, but only one can turn it back on. But once the function is lost, each successive mutation is overwhelmingly more likely to hit a different switch, taking the gene ever further away from functionality.

I believe this is the case in cave fish, where 2 or more mutations have occurred, making it essentially impossible for the fish to ever regain sight.
Not only would the same two nucleotides have to be mutated, they'd have to be returned to their original values.
And this is with just 2 mutations- the fish gaining all the mutations required for sight by random mutation in the first place is mathematically absurd.

But what you describe is not the destruction of a function. The genes are still there. They are just switched off, as in they are not being used. As I said with the chickens, they still have the genes for teeth and it can be switched on, as this article from Scientific American shows:

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth

Nothing in genetics is ever truly lost or broken. It's just a switch, in either the on or off position.

Nothing at all like you seem to imagine evolution showing.

Hans Blaster · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
"adaption results from selection of characteristics"
or we could equally say:

"characteristics result from the selection of adaptations"

Nope. The "characteristics" are the genes and the phenotypes they form. The "adaptations" are the selected characteristics. You can't reverse the statement.

Guy Threepwood said:
It reminds me of an old study of morphine and why it creates drowsiness. Conclusion: 'By virtue of its dormitive properties'

What?

Guy Threepwood said:
But we agree, it does not provide a mechanism for new adaptations to select (in the macro sense), i.e. no explanation of actual evolution, only the distribution and outright elimination of that which has already somehow evolved.

Selection of adaptations is *EXACTLY* what natural selection does. Creation of variations is what mutation does.

Guy Threepwood · May 11, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But what you describe is not the destruction of a function. The genes are still there. They are just switched off, as in they are not being used. As I said with the chickens, they still have the genes for teeth and it can be switched on, as this article from Scientific American shows:

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth
Nothing in genetics is ever truly lost or broken. It's just a switch, in either the on or off position.

Nothing at all like you seem to imagine evolution showing.

Fine, and likewise every bit of digital code in your computer is just a switch, in either the on or off position.
(Though DNA uses quaternary - base 4, versus digital base 2)

So go ahead and randomly change as many switches as you like in the operating system files, you won't 'TRULY' break anything, all the information will still be there

No- don't do this, you will brick the entire system very quickly!

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
Sun finally came out so I'm going to do something more healthy!

Fine, and likewise every bit of digital code in your computer is just a switch, in either the on or off position.
(Though DNA uses quaternary - base 4, versus digital base 2)

So go ahead and randomly change as many switches as you like in the operating system files, you won't 'TRULY' break anything, all the information will still be there

No- don't do this, you will brick the entire system very quickly!

But it's not really the same thing. I have dark brown curly hair. My parents have the same hair colour but neither of them have the curls, so that means the switch for the genes for curls was switched from OFF to ON for me.

That's how genetics works, not your weird idea for how genetics works. Genes are not lost or broken, evolution does not 'regress'.

Hans Blaster · May 11, 2024

Guy Threepwood said:
But the problem remains; you cannot create a human from a bacteria by simply breaking genetic functions of the bacteria.
You need to introduce new functional information, lots and lots of it.

And lots of generations, but there were lots of generations. That's the point you seem to miss, or ignore, or deny.

Humans didn't come from bacteria. We come from earlier apes. Those apes come from earlier primates. Those primates from earlier mammals. And so forth. Just from the earlier apes to humans we are talking about 100,000 generations and we're not that different from them.

Evidence for macro-evolution

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth​

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth​

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Similar threads

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth