Zero probability for Evolution

[metis]

Actually, not according to the current picture of neanderthals. They look basically like modern humans. If you met this guy you wouldn't think him anything but human. And some scientists are acknowledging they are us, now.

There are different Neanderthal strains, namely "generalized" and "classic", and if one saw one of the latter walking down the street you'd see quite a difference in appearance between them and us, let me tell ya.

 

[metis]

As has already been pointed out, there is plenty of examples where information has been added to DNA.

Because it's impossible.

It is not impossible because mutations create what we call "variations within the gene pool".

Each of us have mutations within our bodies somewhere, but the only ones that count in this case are those that affect the sex cells or where something happened in reproductive process. This is not just speculation as geneticists well know how these variations work in general.

For more information, including known examples through studies, maybe google "speciation".

 

[Wildswanderer]

What do you mean, then?

The species adapts. That means it is slightly different. Then the environment changes a bit, so the species adapts some more. It is MORE different than it was from the original. Then the environment changes a bit more and so the species adapts to that new environment. That means it changes a bit more.

That *is* evolution. That is precisely what the *scientists* call evolution. And it is the mechanism for the larger changes that lead to new species.

Nope that is just adaptation from already available information, encoded in a species DNA.
It doesn't get you from a single celled organism to humans.
Michael Denton:. “Neither of the two fundamental axioms” of neo Darwinism,“…continuity of nature…linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell” and “adaptive design…from a blind random process have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.” 4

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, that is a start.

So, we agree that adaptation can occur as a genetic change? And that this can happen in a generation or two?

A minor change like a coyote being larger in certain areas because of environment or wolf DNA can happen in a matter of a few years.

But there's a reason we have to do gene splicing to get even the plants we want... nature doesn't do that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Per your own acknowledgement, you are arguing a strawman.

There's no model?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why would it be impossible? Small changes can add up. And large changes can happen by the accumulation of small ones.

Adding a dollar to your savings is a small change. Doing it 100 times becomes a larger change. Doing it 10,000 times becomes a large change. And doing it 1 million times is a huge change. But each added dollar is a small change.

Lol, simplistic in the extreme. Each kind of animal has a unique and complex DNA code, different from every other kind. It's a program, more complicated than any computer code not a coin.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. A lizard is already specialized in ways that prevent it from going in the direction of mammals. It *might* change in other ways and lead to other species.

The reptiles that evolved into mammals were not lizards. And they went extinct (except for those that changed).

Ah, so evolution cannot do everything. It can not get us from a single celled organism to humankind.

 

[metis]

A minor change like a coyote being larger in certain areas because of environment or wolf DNA can happen in a matter of a few years.

But there's a reason we have to do gene splicing to get even the plants we want... nature doesn't do that.

But there's what we call "hybrids", and what that involves is humans pushing natural selection to its limit. What we call "corn", going back several centuries ago was roughly the size of a pea pod is today, and it had only two leaves covering the kernels. But look at the size of what we see in the supermarket nowadays and how many leaves it now has. [BTW, I'm not referring to the corn that are gmo's]

Evolution happens-- period.

 

[metis]

Lol, simplistic in the extreme. Each kind of animal has a unique and complex DNA code, different from every other kind. It's a program, more complicated than any computer code not a coin.

If you supposedly were to be right, then every geneticist on Planet Earth should be in your camp-- but they ain't.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope that is just adaptation from already available information, encoded in a species DNA.
It doesn't get you from a single celled organism to humans.
Michael Denton:. “Neither of the two fundamental axioms” of neo Darwinism,“…continuity of nature…linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell” and “adaptive design…from a blind random process have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.” 4

OK, let's step back a bit. When adaptation happens, the information in the DNA of the population changes. If it didn't, it wasn't a genetic change that lead to the adaptation.

Can we agree with that?

 

[Polymath257]

A minor change like a coyote being larger in certain areas because of environment or wolf DNA can happen in a matter of a few years.

Once again, we aren't talking about adaptation of single individuals. We are talking about adaptation of the population produced by changes in the genetics.

Do you agree this happens?

But there's a reason we have to do gene splicing to get even the plants we want... nature doesn't do that.

Actually, gene splicing is very recent. before that, we *selected* the variants we liked (for both plants and animals) and bred those. That way, the variants we liked became more common and those we did not like became less common.

Over generations, this meant that the population of domesticated plants and animals took on properties not seen in the wild species.

Do you agree with this much?

 

[Polymath257]

Again, small changes are possible because we have that information already encoded in our DNA. You can not however, make a cow from a lizard. Or a jet from a unicycle.

And did anyone claim that you could?

Mutations add to the variety in a population. In that sense, they provide new information.

And yes, natural selection happens on those variants that already occur.

There are *two* aspects of evolution: mutation adds to the variety and natural selection shifts the averages.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, simplistic in the extreme. Each kind of animal has a unique and complex DNA code, different from every other kind. It's a program, more complicated than any computer code not a coin.

Except that it isn't the same across the population. Different individuals have different genetics, meaning different DNA. Within a species, there are many things that determine which species you have, but even those can differ slightly in different individuals.

Mutations add to the range of different DNA in a population. Those individuals with mutations adapting them to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on that mutation to the next generation.

Do you agree with this?

Also, the overall 'programs' in the DNA change over the course of generations.

We see this in domesticated plants and animals all the time.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, so evolution cannot do everything. It can not get us from a single celled organism to humankind.

Not in one step, nor even in a thousand steps.

But you asked about lizards (a specialized reptile) changing into cows (a very specialized mammal). That isn't what happens nor does any scientist claim it does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's no model?

There sure is a model.
But as per your own admission, you're not arguing against that model.
You are arguing against some other, strawman, model.

You made some claims about adaption.
Then @Polymath257 informed you that that is what evolution is and says.
You then replied with "ow, but that's not what *I* mean by evolution"

Well, great, but it IS what biologists mean. It IS what the actual theory of evolution is all about.
So if you mean something else by it, great. But then you are no longer talking about biological evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol, simplistic in the extreme.

Well, evolution theory is quite simple in principle. It's not rocket science.

Each kind of animal has a unique and complex DNA code

Not really. Sure, in its totality, EVERY organism has a unique DNA string, which is why we can use DNA to identify someone while all we have is a hair, for example. Or some skin cells.

So the DNA of your sister is "unique" and different from yours, which is also unique.
But is your DNA "completely different" from your sister's? Not at all. And it's by measuring the stuff that is not unique that we can determine if your sister is your actual biological sister. It also allows us to distinguish your sister from your mother, your cousins, etc.

The closer related you are to another, the more "common DNA" you'll have.
So you have the most DNA in common with your sister. A little less with your cousin. If you are a caucasian, then less still with a random asian guy. Less still with a random african guy. Less still with bonobo's and chimps. Less still with gorilla's. Less still with oerang oetangs. Less still with old world monkeys. Less still with any other mammal. Etc etc.


It's a nested hierarchy. Which is exactly what one expects, if species share ancestry.

So in summary, your statement is vastly ignorant and, ironically, "way to simplistic in the extreme"

, different from every other kind

Extremely false.

For example, all great apes (which includes humans) have a broken GULO gene. In all of them, it is broken in the exact same way.
Humans also share a ridiculous amount of ERV's which chimps. Less with gorilla's. Less still with oerang oetangs. Less still with old world monkeys. Less still with all other mammals.

Again exactly as we would expect if species share ancestry.
ERV's also, fit into a nested hierarchy. A family tree.

. It's a program, more complicated than any computer code not a coin.

Your continued emphasis on the words "complicated" and "complex", reveal nothing but an argument from awe / incredulity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, so evolution cannot do everything. It can not get us from a single celled organism to humankind.

That is not at all what he said.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It sure looks like it.

Either that, or this is once again the result of you not comprehending the basics of how evolution works according to the theory.

I'm putting my money on both, with the latter being the result of willful ignorance.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That manipulation by humans. Not evolution. We are doing the selecting not nature.

But there's what we call "hybrids", and what that involves is humans pushing natural selection to its limit. What we call "corn", going back several centuries ago was roughly the size of a pea pod is today, and it had only two leaves covering the kernels. But look at the size of what we see in the supermarket nowadays and how many leaves it now has. [BTW, I'm not referring to the corn that are gmo's]

Evolution happens-- period.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you supposedly were to be right, then every geneticist on Planet Earth should be in your camp-- but they ain't.

But some are.

 

[Polymath257]

That manipulation by humans. Not evolution. We are doing the selecting not nature.

So? Artificial selection is what humans do, but natural selection acts by a similar process: some individuals are more likely to survive to pass on their genes than others. As the environment changes, they adapt to that changing environment, which means the genetics of the population changes.

That *is* evolution.