Question about evolution.

[Anti-World]

The biggest and most frustrating thing for me to understand about evolution is what follows. It really has very little, if anything, to do with "creationism" but I couldn't find a better spot for this thread.

If evolution is created from slow change over billions of years, due to natural selection, to what to degree is this "slow" change?

You see... If it *really* takes billions of years to develop an eye how do those tiny, and I mean ridiculously tiny, changes help keep an organism alive?? I understand, for natural selection to work, the organism develops certain characteristics to help it to survive but I fail to see how a slight deformation could possibly help an organism stay alive.

And if it's a larger more dramatic change then why don't we have evidence of this in nature? (Something that changed dramatically and helps the organism survive. It's also important that the trait is capable of being passed on to the next generations.)

I want to know about how fast evolutionists believe creatures change so I can better understand how this theory is suppose to work.
:help:

 

[s2a]

There is no "fast-and simple" answer to your inquiry.

If your really want to know and understand evolution theory, this linked reference (below) is a good place to dive in and get fully immersed...

"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"
Source: TalkOrigins.com [archive]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I understand, for natural selection to work, the organism develops certain characteristics to help it to survive but ...

You are wrong. Perhaps this explains your frustration ...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Evolution .. does not set a speed at which the theory must work... some changes are gradual some quite fast.

Some changes are a change in function rather than a total change.
The earlies eyes started as groups of cell able to record light. some creatures today have only this ability.
It was much later that these cell areas, nerve connections and brain processes increased in efficiency to be able to perceive direction, intensity and form.
it was much later that the ability to see, with the addition of focussing, colour and stereoscopic perception were gained.
There are examples of All of these various abilities and limitations in existence today.
There are also abilities that man has not got such as independent vision in more than one eye at the same time, and the ability to magnify the image.

 

[meogi]

You see... If it *really* takes billions of years to develop an eye how do those tiny, and I mean ridiculously tiny, changes help keep an organism alive?? I understand, for natural selection to work, the organism develops certain characteristics to help it to survive but I fail to see how a slight deformation could possibly help an organism stay alive.

And if it's a larger more dramatic change then why don't we have evidence of this in nature? (Something that changed dramatically and helps the organism survive. It's also important that the trait is capable of being passed on to the next generations.)

I want to know about how fast evolutionists believe creatures change so I can better understand how this theory is suppose to work.

The evolutionary process has been going on for billions of years; it doesn't take billions of years for species to change or mutations to occur. They can occur quite quickly. The reason we don't see it happening quickly is becuase our reference point is such a small portion of what 'quickly' is in a geologic timescale. ([edit] However, the fossil record allows us to broaden our reference point). Evolution happens though the advance of a population's generations and changes in their environments; time itself isn't really a factor.

Watch this video, I hate its name but it's informative about the process:
YouTube - Evolution for ID-iots (version 2.0)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You see... If it *really* takes billions of years to develop an eye how do those tiny, and I mean ridiculously tiny, changes help keep an organism alive?? I understand, for natural selection to work, the organism develops certain characteristics to help it to survive but I fail to see how a slight deformation could possibly help an organism stay alive.

No organism along the chain from non-sighted things to us was trying to "develop an eye". In every instance, the successful random mutation was either positive (i.e. helped the organism) or neutral (i.e. did not help or hinder) to that organism in its specific environment at that particular time.

 

[rojse]

The biggest and most frustrating thing for me to understand about evolution is what follows. It really has very little, if anything, to do with "creationism" but I couldn't find a better spot for this thread.

If evolution is created from slow change over billions of years, due to natural selection, to what to degree is this "slow" change?

You see... If it *really* takes billions of years to develop an eye how do those tiny, and I mean ridiculously tiny, changes help keep an organism alive?? I understand, for natural selection to work, the organism develops certain characteristics to help it to survive but I fail to see how a slight deformation could possibly help an organism stay alive.

And if it's a larger more dramatic change then why don't we have evidence of this in nature? (Something that changed dramatically and helps the organism survive. It's also important that the trait is capable of being passed on to the next generations.)

I want to know about how fast evolutionists believe creatures change so I can better understand how this theory is suppose to work.
:help:

We do have evidence of these changes.

As such changes occur over many generations, the best testing is done with bacteria or small organisms, such as mice, which have a high reproduction rate.

Many biologists have carried out laboratory work to test the theory of evolution. Here is a site to get you started.

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Valjean]

Change is not driven by a single mechanism. There are several mechanisms that drive evolution. Yes, there is slow change over billions of years, but evolution is also punctuated by spurts and sudden, instantaneous changes.
There is a great deal of chance involved. A single substitution on a DNA chain can produce no change, or it can produce an entirely different organism. Some genes apparently do nothing, others make minute changes in biochemestry, but others can turn on or off entire life or growth processes.

In stable, fully populated, competative environments all ecological niches are filled and rates of change are supressed. In changing or underpopulated environments evolution can proceed like lightening.

 

[Halcyon]

I want to know about how fast evolutionists believe creatures change so I can better understand how this theory is suppose to work.
:help:

Sometimes a species will hardly change at all in 65 million years, like the Coelacanth. In other species, like our own, dramatic change can occur in a few hundred thousand years. It is entirely dependant upon the pressures causing the change, whether they be biotic or abiotic pressures.

For example, the Hagfish is a very simple fish-like animal which lives on the sea bed, its environment has not changed for millions of years, nor has its food source (dead animals) really changed enough to effect a difference in the creature's niche. As such the body plan of the Hagfish has not changed much, it remains very similar to the ancient jaw-less craniates that our modern fish evolved from.
Any mutations are usually detrimental or neutral since the Hagfish is already perfectly suited it its niche. There are no pressures forcing change, nor any selective benefit to changing.

On the other hand, if we had a hypothetical fish living in a lake that experienced a sudden dramatic change, like volcanism. Then either the species must adapt fast or face extinction.
In this case those fish who could gain some oxygen from gulping air may be able to just survive in a lake that has become somewhat oxygen depleted. Over the generations, any slight increasement in the amount of oxygen an individual fish may gain from gulping air would be of tremendous benefit, allowing it to live longer and breed more. Over, say 10,000 years we may see a dramatic anatomical change within the fish species, possibly even resulting in a species like today's lungfish.

 

[Valjean]

Sometimes a species will hardly change at all in 65 million years, like the Coelacanth. In other species, like our own, dramatic change can occur in a few hundred thousand years. It is entirely dependant upon the pressures causing the change, whether they be biotic or abiotic pressures.

For example, the Hagfish is a very simple fish-like animal which lives on the sea bed, its environment has not changed for millions of years, nor has its food source (dead animals) really changed enough to effect a difference in the creature's niche. As such the body plan of the Hagfish has not changed much, it remains very similar to the ancient jaw-less craniates that our modern fish evolved from.
Any mutations are usually detrimental or neutral since the Hagfish is already perfectly suited it its niche. There are no pressures forcing change, nor any selective benefit to changing.

On the other hand, if we had a hypothetical fish living in a lake that experienced a sudden dramatic change, like volcanism. Then either the species must adapt fast or face extinction.
In this case those fish who could gain some oxygen from gulping air may be able to just survive in a lake that has become somewhat oxygen depleted. Over the generations, any slight increasement in the amount of oxygen an individual fish may gain from gulping air would be of tremendous benefit, allowing it to live longer and breed more. Over, say 10,000 years we may see a dramatic anatomical change within the fish species, possibly even resulting in a species like today's lungfish.

Good points, Halcyon. I'm not sure why you chose 65M years in your example, though. The Coelacanth is way older than that. In fact, there are plenty of plants and animals all around us that were morphologically identical to today's models long before dinosaurs even occurred to the Man Upstairs

I think 10,000 years as a low end is being overly conservative. Factor in Founder and Island effects and you can see distinct phenotypical variants emerge in only a decade or two.

 

[Halcyon]

I'm not sure why you chose 65M years in your example, though. The Coelacanth is way older than that. In fact, there are plenty of plants and animals all around us that were morphologically identical to today's models long before dinosaurs even occurred to the Man Upstairs

Good point, i guess i'm just thinking how even a massive event like the K-T extinction didn't even cause it to change much.

I think 10,000 years as a low end is being overly conservative. Factor in Founder and Island effects and you can see distinct phenotypical variants emerge in only a decade or two.

Yeah, but my example was about the development of a lung-type organ. The stuff we see in very short spaces of time is rarely so dramatic.

 

[painted wolf]

the Coelacanth isn't a species.... its a genus. And yes, they have changed since the time of the dinosaurs.

The OP brings up the false idea of "a half an eye". There is no such thing as a half an anything in biology. The 'eye' doesn't require all the same pieces to function, though image quality is a factor.
Being able to distinguish between light and dark was an advantage to early life forms. Mutations that helped (or didn't hurt) this ability were more likely to be passed on to future generations.

The development of the eye isn't the mystery it once was. Sadly many creationist groups haven't kept up with modern scientific advances, so they use the same arguments from decades past.

Ironically the basic arguments of Creationism haven't changed since the 1920's.
Science, on the other hand has changed tremendously.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

You see... If it *really* takes billions of years to develop an eye how do those tiny, and I mean ridiculously tiny, changes help keep an organism alive??

The changes aren't meant to keep it alive, selection decides that. But just imagine the incredible number of variations throughout time, no matter how short-lived. Cool.

And if it's a larger more dramatic change then why don't we have evidence of this in nature?

Yeah, it would be nice to see a big change. Even just once. I guess that'll never happen in our lifetimes.

 

[rocketman]

There is no such thing as a half an anything in biology.

But there must have been a lot of 'pandas thumbs' along the way.

The really big changes would also surely have required the carrying around of useless/semi-useful bits and pieces for who knows how many generations, don't you think?

 

[joeboonda]

No organism along the chain from non-sighted things to us was trying to "develop an eye". In every instance, the successful random mutation was either positive (i.e. helped the organism) or neutral (i.e. did not help or hinder) to that organism in its specific environment at that particular time.

If mutations are instrumental in the presumed evolutionary progression of life, they should tend to increase the viability and systematization of the organism in which they occur. In reality, however, mutations are amost always (99.99%) harmful, if not lethal, to the unfortunate orgnisms in which they occur. In other words, mutations produce organisms that are weaker and at a marked disadvantage; they are less able to compete for survival. Mutations are not only harmful, but they are very rare. They occur once in about every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule. Also, mutations are random, not directional. Thus, mutations are unpredictable and do not follow any ordered design or plan, as would certainly be expected if the concept of organic evolution is to have any hope at all. Consequently, mere random mutations cannot account for organized directional evolution; they lack the all-important capacity for intelligent design. From the Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If mutations are instrumental in the presumed evolutionary progression of life, they should tend to increase the viability and systematization of the organism in which they occur. In reality, however, mutations are amost always (99.99%) harmful, if not lethal, to the unfortunate orgnisms in which they occur. In other words, mutations produce organisms that are weaker and at a marked disadvantage; they are less able to compete for survival. Mutations are not only harmful, but they are very rare. They occur once in about every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.

Yes, most mutations are harmful. Some (the 0.01% that your quote referred to) are positive. This is enough.

Also, mutations are random, not directional. Thus, mutations are unpredictable and do not follow any ordered design or plan, as would certainly be expected if the concept of organic evolution is to have any hope at all. Consequently, mere random mutations cannot account for organized directional evolution; they lack the all-important capacity for intelligent design. From the Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse.

No, random mutation alone cannot account for evolution. Random mutation coupled with natural selection can.

 

[joeboonda]

Random mutation, natural selection and time. I think its those 3 ingredients. However, time's handywork is disassociatation and disintegration, not synthesis. Although chance processes can produce things (your .01%), its is also true that whatever chance creates, it almost instantly destroys. And natural selection is only a conservative process that tends to insure the survival and perpetuation of fit organisms while eliminating unfit organisms. It is not an innovative process that produces novel sturctures. It only acts to conserve structures and organisms already in existence. So, then the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and time cannot account for the presumed evolutionary progression of life. Basically, Mutations produce less fit organisms, natural selection eliminates those, and time brings death and disintegration. The proposed three-fold mechanism of evoluition is clearly a triple negative incapable of generating anything positive. (again, partly quoting Mr. Huse, from above, with my own additions, variations)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Random mutation, natural selection and time. I think its those 3 ingredients. However, time's handywork is disassociatation and disintegration, not synthesis. Although chance processes can produce things (your .01%), its is also true that whatever chance creates, it almost instantly destroys.

Please explain the mechanism by which new positive traits are "instantly destroyed" by "time".

And natural selection is only a conservative process that tends to insure the survival and perpetuation of fit organisms while eliminating unfit organisms.

Natural selection is only "conservative" in the case of a negative trait (which happens a lot) or when an organism is perfectly adapted to its environment (which never happens).

It is not an innovative process that produces novel sturctures. It only acts to conserve structures and organisms already in existence.

Yes. As we established already, it's random mutation that produces new structures, not natural selection.

So, then the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and time cannot account for the presumed evolutionary progression of life.

Cannot be concluded, since the required premises for this conclusion are incorrect.

Basically, Mutations produce less fit organisms, natural selection eliminates those, and time brings death and disintegration. The proposed three-fold mechanism of evoluition is clearly a triple negative incapable of generating anything positive.

No.

Mutations produce both less fit and more fit organisms. Natural selection favours the more fit and disfavours the less fit. With the passage of time, individual organisms die, but their genotypes and inheritable traits continue to the next generation.

(again, partly quoting Mr. Huse, from above, with my own additions, variations)

You may want to stop relying on Mr. Huse. Judging by what you've posted of his, he doesn't appear to have his facts straight.

 

[joeboonda]

Please explain the mechanism by which new positive traits are "instantly destroyed" by "time".


Natural selection is only "conservative" in the case of a negative trait (which happens a lot) or when an organism is perfectly adapted to its environment (which never happens).


Yes. As we established already, it's random mutation that produces new structures, not natural selection.


Cannot be concluded, since the required premises for this conclusion are incorrect.


No.

Mutations produce both less fit and more fit organisms. Natural selection favours the more fit and disfavours the less fit. With the passage of time, individual organisms die, but their genotypes and inheritable traits continue to the next generation.


You may want to stop relying on Mr. Huse. Judging by what you've posted of his, he doesn't appear to have his facts straight.

You should read his book. I don't agree with you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You should read his book. I don't agree with you.

Is there anything in particular that I've posted that you have issue with?