[Q&A]Challenging the theory of evolution

[Tigrul]

1. I like that you've adopted a smoother tone. I will do my best to do the same. I guess you were greater than me for this.

2. Please present me with some sources for those claims, I want to study them myself. Would you please offer, for instance, a link to the page where you've found that harmful mutations seem to be the most frequent ones?

3. Personal feeling is irrelevant. Just because one feels that natural selection is overrated doesn't mean that natural selection is so. :P Also, I could understand your personal feelings, I can see why some people "feel" as you do, because it makes sense, but I think it makes sense because you're not viewing from the best perspective, but by judging things on too small a scale (i.e. the individual, the generation) It is not so much a matter of most of the individuals with slightly better chances passing on genes, and the others not taken into consideration per one generation, as it is this selection process taken into consideration over many generations. If two birds are hatched, one with slightly better eye sight and one with slightly worse eye sight, chances are that they both get to pass on their genes. But of their offsprings, the ones from the bird with slightly better eyesight would have a lot better of a chance of having even better eye sight, while the ones from the bird with worse eye sight would have a better chance at having even worse eye sight. Chances are that most of them will be somewhere along the middle, but some birds will get even better eye sight and some even worse eye sight. In a few generations, the differences are great enough for the descendents of the bird with slightly worse eye sight from our starting scenario to have died out. Also, another thing to take into account here, although of lesser value imo, is that if you are talking about large populations and some of them have 0.001% better eye sight and some of them have 0.001% worse eye sight, it is more probable, statistically, that if some of the birds have to die early, i.e. due to hunger, that more of the birds with 0.001% worse eye sight will die than from any other group of birds categorized by eye sight. There is still a lot of random chance going on, but over time, the gene pool is just a little towards something different. Also, over time, the descendents of some of the birds, as mentioned in the first point on feelings, would have a better chance at having eye sight better by enough of a margin to "take over" the whole species in another few generations.
I don't know how much sense this makes, but to me it sounds just like the theory of evolution by natural means. It is exactly this difference of perspective which is responsible, in my opinion, for some of the reasons why some people don't trust the theory of evolution. The right perspective to hold is that in evolution, it's the accumulation of changes over generations which matter, not the individual.

Also, assuming that you have made these specifications on the overratedness of natural selection as a means to counter my argument of why it is wrong to use examples from the human species to argue against evolution TO the human species, there is another side: the examples of degeneration you were presenting were all major examples. Asthma is not comparable to slightly worse eye sight. Asthma is the type of deficiency which natural selection would weed out in one generation, most likely, or a very small number of generations. So, at least the fact that natural selection is weaker in humans than in other species would not be affected by the randomness of the process, because in species with stronger natural selection, weaknesses as great as the ones of some humans would be incredibly unlikely to be passed on.

4. Yes, I agree, we should look for species which don't get to benefit from humans, and, if you're right, we should see a lot of degeneration. I look forward to seeing such studies.

~~~~~

On another note, I have thought that my passion for this may have generated the wrong ideas, so I want to make some clarifications.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, just like the theory of relativity (which explains, among others, the phenomenon of gravity, better than the theory of gravity which has made wrong predictions), just like the cell theory, just like the theory of real numbers. Of course, some of these theories are stronger (i.e. the theories of mathematics) and some of them are weaker (i.e. the theory of the big-bang), with the theory of evolution being one of the strongest (obviously, weaker than the theories of mathematics ). However, they are all theories, which means that they are the closest thing we have to truth, given the current supporting evidence. They aren't facts, they aren't "the truth", but only what is the most likely to be the truth given what we currently know. However, for the theory of evolution, there is a lot of proof and no proof against, so it is irrational to think that the theory of evolution is wrong. One can only say that it seems to be true, so one can't really say that evolution is the truth, but on the other hand, there is no rational reason to believe that the theory of evolution is wrong, given what we currently know. Furthermore, there is no theory conflicting with the one of evolution which is backed up by proof or otherwise be qualified as a valid scientific theory. So... to be skpetic about the theory of evolution... that's perfectly rational, to believe the theory of evolution is wrong is irrational, and to believe in systems of ideas which conflict with the theory of evolution, given that there is no proof backing them up, is also irrational.

As for the fact of evolution... there actually is such a thing, in that the phenomenon of evolution is a fact. Not the theory of evolution, but only the phenomenon of evolution, which has been directly observed in lot of experiments on life forms with rapid multiplication. The theory of evolution is only the conclusion that the phenomenon of evolution, which is a fact, can lead to all of the life forms existing on Earth today, over large enough periods of time.

[MDWhip]

For those of you interested in this topic and have an open mind I recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmak.../dp/0393315703

[yerkyerk]

Well, bashing eachother wasn't going in the right direction either So, a milder tone would work better.

Anyway, the diseases I put forth were indeed bigger than a small loss of eyesight, that was to show that even such influential genetic mess-ups could be maintained. I wouldn't expect to usually see this in species that aren't dependent on humans, as natural selection would take care of it. I think humans just can go through more 'mistakes' because they've learned to deal with them - but even with the aid we offer they're still disadvantages and because of that, almost all of them should theoretically be taken care off by natural selection.
Nevertheless, I'll search for studies regarding the effects of regular mutation on cells (there's one on wikipedia under mutation - it is ofcourse linked to an outside source).

Where I do not follow your argumentation is why birds with slightly better eyesight would gain even better eyesight on the next generations - and the birds with slightly worse eyesight would develop a decreasing eyesight on the upcoming generations. Also, both species are in the same area, so birds with bad, good and normal eyesight would pass on their genes to the others.
I do believe that more fitting genes have a better chance at surviving, but that the changes are usually so small that it's hardly better than chance. And with - as I claim, I should get source for that - the much bigger chance of detrimental changes over the beneficial changes, detrimental changes will be much more prevalent.

Btw, I agree with your theory part; except where you claim that evolution is supported so strongly ofcourse
I do believe in a somewhat limited form of evolution though. Nothing that would explain life as is, as well as the diversities within, but rather, a form that allows us to adapt and survive - but on a larger scale also has detrimental effects.

[Matseb2611]

Hey Tigrul.

Well to be honest, it's not what I felt was right, it's what I've studied and when I gave it a thought it made sense. Your body has genes programmed for many important functions, such as cell death, cell proliferation, etc, and messing up the code would disrupt a process that the body needs to be taking place.

[Tigrul]

I think it's only fair that I say this:

I have my final undergraduate exams (those things before master's degree) in the following weeks, so I will not post any answers here until sometime in the middle towards the end of July.

I think it's the decent thing to announce it.
I am looking forward to continuing the discussion then.

[yerkyerk]

Heh, just posting here that I will be free soon and posting that mutation-is-generally-a-negative-thing stuff

[Matseb2611]

I've finished my exams and got my degree, so I am ready for you guys whenever.

[The Rock-man]

A "Scientific Theory" is a Theory that Fits all available evidence, where evidence = FACTS. Now the Theory may change if extra facts turn up that contradict the theory so far nothing has contradicted evolution at all. To be honest all Science laws the Laws of Thermodynamics the Laws of Motion etc are all "Scientific Theories" just like evolution.

As for Genetic deficiencies and benifital mutations they are ONE and the SAME depends on how many copies of each gene you got. IE with 1 COPY of the gene grants the individual with that gene an advantage. Lets take Sickle Cell anemia for example, this is a side effect of protection against malaria, one gene = malaria resistant and no disease 2 copies = disease strikes. All of the nasty inheritable diseases are the same, with out the full set they are beneficial to the individual with them (or at worse make no different to said individual), untill you got the case where one gets the full set (look at it as being dealt 8 cards from a pack of cards as long as you dont get 4 of kind your safe, and if you get 3 of a kind you win $20, but if you get 4 of kind you lose $40)

As for all % DNA shared this is all wrong, what most mean there's DNA that does similar stuff between these Species a), others it the exact % that same this will be far smaller b).

b) is the < 98% Chimp DNA value and a) is the stupidly high 80% of Chicken and I believe 50% of a Banana is another.

As for glasses or lenses, nobody who has an allergy, asthma, cancer, cancer is a mutation or coping error in a cell cloning it self (the same thing that Evolution relies on). Glasses and Asthma are mostly a result of our modern life styes. As for allergys that when the body goes haywire similar to what happens with friendly fire in the armed forces.


As for the Eyesight example lets see if I can explain it to you Yerkyerk, there's a chance that in any generation eyesight will improve by 1% and a chance it will decrease by 1%. (assume theres 1/3 chance of these happening) So given this bird A gives birth to B1 B2 and B3 now B1 got +1% eye sight B2 the same as A and B3 got -1% to his eyesight all are likely to live and reproduce.
B1 reproduces producing C1 C2 and C3 now C1 got +2% eyesight C2 +1% and C3 is the same as A.
Now for B3 producing D1 D2 and D3 with D1 being the same as A D2 same as B3 and D3 having -2% eyesight. Etc, now from this you can see over time descendants of no 1 of each generation will end up much better of that descendants from no 3, and therefore, the B1-C1-E1-G1-etc line will become the most common of the bunch where as the B3-D3-F3-H3-etc will die out.