More evolution evidence... I think (Earth, experience, advent, deformities)

[Ryan2065]

So I've always heard one big argument against evolution... Basically the argument is "big changes" cannot happen by way of evolution (ie things randomly growing arms, things sprouting wings... etc)

Hopefully this is some evidence that "big changes" can in fact happen by way of evolution.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...tm?POE=TECISVA

Doctors discuss surgery for baby with 3 arms

SHANGHAI (AP) — Doctors in Shanghai on Tuesday were considering surgery options for a 2-month-old boy born with an unusually well-formed third arm.

Neither of the boy's two left arms is fully functional and tests have so far been unable to determine which was more developed, said Dr. Chen Bochang, head of the orthopedics department at Shanghai Children's Medical Center.

"His case is quite peculiar. We have no record of any child with such a complete third arm," Chen said in a telephone interview.

The boy, identified only as "Jie-jie," also was born with just one kidney and may have problems that could lead to curvature of the spine, local media reports said. Jie-jie cried when either of his left arms was touched, but smiled and responded normally to other stimuli, the reports said.

Chen said doctors hoped to work out a plan for surgery, but the boy's small size made it impossible to perform certain tests that would help them prepare.
Media reports said other children have been reported born with additional arms and legs, but in those cases it was clear what limb was more developed. Chen's hospital is one of China's most experienced in dealing with unusual birth defects, including separating conjoined twins.

[mr.guy]

What i wonder is just exactly how big a number one needs to affirm divinity.

From what i understand, i can write a "1" on a blackboard, then produce a buttload of zeros.

Eventually, through this exercise, you'll be obligated to rationally acknowledege God.

[Damien Sid Malery]

A birth defect is, by no means, proof for evolution. This is mainly because a birth defect, like growing extra limbs, is do to radiation or something the mother did to her body. Also, as far as I know, deformities are not passed on to the children (I'm not completely sure about that.) You should also notice that in the history of evolution nothing useless was randomly generated in place of something usefull. Growing a third arm but losing the other two is not a typical evolution.

[JerryL]

A birth defect is, by no means, proof for evolution.

He wasn't trying to prove evolution. He was trying to prove that large-scale changes occur.

This is mainly because a birth defect, like growing extra limbs, is do to radiation or something the mother did to her body.

What I gleen most from this is that you don't understand the causes of mutation nor birth defects.

Also, as far as I know, deformities are not passed on to the children (I'm not completely sure about that.)

A change in genetic makeup is likely to be passeed on to at least some of the children of the person with the mutation. A morpiological difference cause by non-genetic changes would not be passed on.

You should also notice that in the history of evolution nothing useless was randomly generated in place of something usefull. Growing a third arm but losing the other two is not a typical evolution.

This statement is so flawed I'm not sure how to respond to it.

Let's not talk about "evolution" as a whole for a moment, and talk about mutation: the mechanism which introduces diversity into the evolutionary process.

Not only can mutation result in a morphological trat which reduces competitive advantage (such as a "useless" thing), but I would assert that such non and counter-productive mutations are the *more* common type.

What generally happens, then, is that natural selection kicks in and deselects the creature with these less-competitive traits (such as a lack of a working left arm), and removes these mutations from the gene pool.

... generally ...

The genome is rife with mutations which have stuck which appear almost universally negative (dwarfism for example), and those which are advantaggeous under some circumstances but disadventageous under others (sickle-cell).

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by JerryL

Let's not talk about "evolution" as a whole for a moment, and talk about mutation: the mechanism which introduces diversity into the evolutionary process.

JerryL, just out of curiosity, do you know of any beneficial germ-line mutations that have been recorded in the modern age?

With so many scientists, studies and research I thought there might be some examples of a beneficial mutation that has been identified in a person/animal which was not there earlier and has since been passed on to the next-generation?

[By beneficial I mean truly advantageous, as opposed to an interdependant combo of good and bad].

[JerryL]

JerryL, just out of curiosity, do you know of any beneficial germ-line mutations that have been recorded in the modern age?

SIV mutated to be transmittable in humans. It mutated again making it more resistant to teh drugs beign used against it (HIV2).

The various influenzas are in a constatnt state of mutation. The mere foact of this mutation allows them to reinfect people who have become immune to them in their current configuration. Without these mutations, they would disappear from the Earth (therefore they are benifited by them).

Though "objectively good" is much like "objectively pretty", it's an oxymoron.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by JerryL

SIV mutated to be transmittable in humans. It mutated again making it more resistant to teh drugs beign used against it (HIV2).

The various influenzas are in a constatnt state of mutation. The mere foact of this mutation allows them to reinfect people who have become immune to them in their current configuration. Without these mutations, they would disappear from the Earth (therefore they are benifited by them).

Though "objectively good" is much like "objectively pretty", it's an oxymoron.

I would agree that the mutations you described are beneficial for the organisms involved, and are good examples of natural selection.

I guess I really had in mind mutations that are both beneficial and provide new function. Of-course I should have said that. I know how the viruses that you described incur mutations that camoflauge them from antibodies, which I suppose some would say is a new function, though not I. Anyway, my understanding is that the core functions are not affected, else if they are then the virus dies. I suppose I am expecting a bit much from a simple virus RNA.

Thanks anyway.

[Scuba Pete]

Most birth defects are anomalies of an environmental origin. If the subject subsequently produces offspring with a third arm, then we truly have a remarkable genetic variation here.

Most large genetic variations are simply the cumulation of myriads of tiny variations that lead to it. There is nothing in the length of time for speciation to occur that renders it useless. Nature is patient.

Most of the animosity directed at evolution and it's proponents is derived from an "Us Vs Them" mentality that seems to be propagated from both sides of the fence. Both sides draw lines in the sand and talk right past each other in a futile attempt to prove themselves the "victor". Niether science nor God disagree with each other. Deal with it.

[JerryL]

I guess I really had in mind mutations that are both beneficial and provide new function.

Give me an example of a "new function" which biologists claim to have appeared in, say, that past ten-million years or so.

The last "new function" I can think of under your apparent criteria was endothermia... which goes back more than 100,000,000 years.

Though even your question has the smell of an argument from ignorance. Do you agree that all of the existing functions are the results of the order of chemicals on the DNA strands in the cells of the creature at the time or reproduction? If so, what mechanism do you see limiting changes which would result in "new functions"?

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by JerryL

Though even your question has the smell of an argument from ignorance.

It was a question. A simple 'no' would have sufficed.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Do you agree that all of the existing functions are the results of the order of chemicals on the DNA strands in the cells of the creature at the time or reproduction?

Yes, of-course.

Originally Posted by JerryL

If so, what mechanism do you see limiting changes which would result in "new functions"?

I always crack a smile when the discussion mysteriously switches from 'did it happen?' to 'could it have happened?' Your question seems to flow from the assumption that mutation can cause any possible change. I would balance that assumption against the known fact that all lifeforms are extremely complex and possessing many highly interdependant systems, even those way back in prehistory. I've listened patiently while others have tried to convince me from experiments which simply reassign existing genes, but not repurpose them, so that is insufficient. The evolutionary family tree as it is commonly presented would have required accidents of the most sophisticated kind, regardless of whether changes were gradual or punctuated.

Given that mutation is meant to be the key source it is not unreasonable for a person to inquire if such sophisticated emergences have been observed. If they have not been observed then they remain inferred. You may have faith that mutation provided what was required for selection, but in these larger-scale areas of evolution I respectfully do not share your faith.