Question for evolutionists?

Question

I am curious about the effect of mutations on any given species. In order for the theory of evolution to have occurred, drastic changes had to have taken place from one creature to the next, correct? But how can that happen? For instance, if I have a snail and look at it's entire genome- I won't find genes that can allow the snail to sprout wings and fly away, can I? So how can it be that over time those genes can become present? Considering that mutations can only delete or transport certain sections of genes-- how is it that new information can become present? A genuine question, not to prove a point and no offense intended. :0)

Answer 1

So, your question is how can new genes be created?

The most common way is gene duplication followed by mutations, as observed many, many times in bacteria.  Here is the most dramatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

Another way is the creation of an ORF from intergenic sequences.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/...

However, the vast majority of change in form is due to the modification of the regulatory sites of the genes that control embryonic development.  A lot can be done just by shuffling gene expression.

Answer 2

new information arises from natural selection - the environment the animals are in -what their predators are, - social interactions -etc

it also doesn't happen over night, it takes many years

here's an example, a group of animals live together and their environment has brown colors but then one day some of the animals get trapped away from the other group because of a flood and it forms a river, those animals travel and can't go past the river, the environment on that side of the river gets snow in the winter, the animals are preyed on and only the lighter colored animals live because the predators can't see the lighter animals as well.  eventually after several generations there are only white animals on that side of the river and brown animals on the other

it's stuff like that that happens over millions of years to get differences in the animals

Answer 3

just keep reading your 2000 year old book that you don't even know who wrote and keep your mind closed.  thats what you people are good at.

Answer 4

It's gradual, we don't usually get big leaps for the reasons you state.  But if you doubt that there are animals making changes, just look at the "flying squirrel". It may not fly like a bird or a bat...yet...but it sure does glide really well, just using those flaps under its arms.  That didn't happen all at once. It's pretty clear that individual squirrels starting jumping and using those flaps to control their leaps, and it took off like a fashion. Insects are another great type to study if you want evidence for evolution.  Experts find new types all the time. Also mutations DO add new sequences of DNA.

Answer 5

Jim answer is horribly misguided.  Most changes accrue slowly, one at a time.  So, do the exercise he asked you to do with the phrase "Is Evolution Possible?".  

Put all those letters and spaces in a bag.  Pick them blindly, one by one.  Every time the first one you pick isn't "I", start over.  When you do pick the first I (a 1 in 22 chance), set it aside (do not put it in the bag).  This is the equivalent of a single beneficial (or even neutral) mutation.  Now do the same thing again.  You're looking for the "s" this time, except now every pick is a 1 in 21 chance.  This goes on and on, with each correct letter causing a higher chance of the next letter being correct.

While this still ends up being a low probability of happening in perfect order with the first short every time (1 in 22*21*20*19... etc), this is not how it needs to happen in nature.  It's a step by step process, making it hugely more likely than what Jim thinks is necessary.  

If we want to talk statistical improbability, think about endogenous retroviruses.  They are basically "scars" of past viruses, written into our own DNA, and act as markers of heredity.  We share about 8 with other primates, out of about 2.3 billion possible base pairs in our genome.  So do the math, 1 out of 2.3 billion to the 8th power (roughly 1 out of 783 billion).  

Now to answer the original question, which is along the sme lines as the answer I gave.  Massive changes are not necessary in one single step, you are talking about millions of years (or, in some cases, hundreds of thousands) for a lot of massive changes.  But these are all simply accumulations of prior beneficial or neutral mutations over time.  Sometimes smaller changes happen in a relatively short time.  Look at the lizards introduced onto a Croatian island and left there for 31 years that have been discovered recently.  In 31 years they adapted to available food by developing a new muscle valve in their digestive tract, allowing them to flourish.  See the link below.

Another great display of changes accumulating one at a time is the recent long study of e. coli by Richard Linski, which showed e. coli evolving to be able to feed on citrate.  This is something that required 3 separate mutations to do, yet he preserved samples of the strain over 20 years, and is able to point out exactly where those mutations, one by one, took place.  

Two great examples of directly observable phenomena.

Answer 6

"if I have a snail and look at it's entire genome- I won't find genes that can allow the snail to sprout wings and fly away, can I?"

Nope.

But if you look at a lizard, you will see genes that control skin growth between limbs.  And those genes can be altered a little so that more skin grows there, allowing the lizard to fly.  And you see genes for muscles in the limbs of the lizard, no reason why they can't be altered a little to allow for stronger flapping.

We have fossil transitions showing all kinds of slow, gradual changes like this.

"Considering that mutations can only delete or transport certain sections of genes"

Don't be silly.  Mutations can also duplicate genes, and then those duplicated genes can continue to change, until you have two differnt genes where you used to have one before.  For instance, most mammals have a gene called SAMD9L.  Primates have SAMD9L, and another gene right next to it, that is almost idetical, called SAMD9.

The simplest explanation is that in a primate common ancestor, the gene was duplicated.

Answer 7

http://www.butterflygardens.com/learn_bu...

If you look at this link it takes you through the stages of how a caterpillar ends up being a completely different insect through its lifecycle/evolution. It doesnt talk about mutations etc; but offers an explanation in laymans terms I guess. This could serve as a demonstration of the possibility at least, enough so, that evolution theory cannot be disregarded completely. Please take note of the pupa/chrisalis stage and butterfly stage....it really is extraordinary, I think.

Answer 8

> "In order for the theory of evolution to have occurred, drastic changes had to have taken place from one creature to the next, correct?"

No. Sorry.

Evolution occurs by the SLOW accumulation of SMALL changes.

If I step an inch a day, I will eventually walk a mile.

> "So how can it be that over time those genes can become present?"

There are a number of mechanisms:

[1] existing genes can be modified to perform a new function.

[2] genes can be duplicated by replication errors, or by chromosomal nondisjunction. This allws the 2 versions of the same gene to evolve differently, and eventually they will perform different functions.

> "Considering that mutations can only delete or transport certain sections of genes-- how is it that new information can become present?"

Mutations do NOT only delete or transport sections of genes.

They can delete genes (in whole or in part).

They can duplicate genes (whole or in part) - or entire chromosomes (nondisjunction and polyploidy).

They can change genes (slightly or totally).

Answer 9

No, drastic changes don't occur from one creature to the next.

It's untrue that "mutations can only delete or transport certain sections of genes" a mutation can undo anything it can do, or vice versa.  A mutation can add random new information - most of the time it's neutral and does not get selected for or against.  Most of the remainder it's harmful and gets selected against.  Occasionally, though, it's beneficial and gets selected for.

This 'information' argument is often brought up by creationists who then leave the definition of 'information' intentionally vague, so as to be able to shift it around as they need.  Here are some facts that I'm copy-pasting from a different website:

"We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)

* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)

* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

This was taken specifically from this page - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB...

There is a lot more detail here - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/informat...

For an example, look at the E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...

This is an observed case, under controlled lab conditions, of the evolution of a novel, beneficial new trait by random mutation selected by natural selection.

Answer 10

Let’s look at the common, non-winged, pulmonate gastropods that you spoke about for an example of a single gene mutation that reproductively isolated a whole population, and produced a new species of snail without losing or transporting any genetic information.

Snails may not have genes that code for wings but they do have a gene that codes for the coiling direction of their spiral shells. If this gene mutates causing the spiral to go in the opposite direction, a snail with the mutant gene can no longer mate with their fellow snails. This is because their genital openings are now mismatched and cannot be joined. Biologists call this reproductive isolation – where one individual or an entire population of organisms cannot or will not reproduce with others of their own species. This is just one form of reproductive isolation; there are many ways it can occur.

Reproductive isolation is fairly final for sexual organisms. With so little chance to pass on their genes, they never become a part of the gene pool; they’re genetic dead-ends. This sounds very similar to the misconceived “hopeful monster” - a mutant in search of a mate but the only suitable mate has to have exactly the same mutant gene and that’s not very likely. Fortunately, for this example, these snails are hermaphroditic; each individual has a complete set of male and female organs. Because this single new organism (with one mutant gene) can still reproduce, it can establish a new population with opposite coiling and become a new species.

Over time, this new species has accumulated other genetic differences so that their shell sculpture is different from the parent species indicating that they're not merely chiral morphs of the same species but a classic biological species. In fact, this form of speciation has happened several times in both directions so no information is forever lost.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~uy/specseminar/p...

This is an example of mutation and speciation - certainly not the drastic changes from one critter to the next that you mention but evolution nonetheless. I think the changes you’re thinking of are from phyla to phyla, kingdom to kingdom, and domain to domain, not necessarily species to species. The mechanisms for this more fundamental level of diversification will, perhaps, not be completely explained through mutation and natural selection, but there are many mechanisms and models that can play a role – evo-devo, homeobox genes, lateral and oblique gene transfer, epigenetics, illegitimate recombination, exaptation, exon shuffling, retroposition, quantum evolution, punctuated gradualism, etc. Although phyletic gradualism will always remain a part of the theory (because we’ve seen it happen), as we integrate more genetic processes and evolutionary models into the theory of evolution, it will appear radically different (in certain ways) from its current form (the Modern Synthesis).

http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/fullaccess/fullte...

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-b...

http://www.pnas.org/content/90/1/143.abs...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/jou...

In any event, your contention that, “…mutations can only delete or transport certain sections of genes…” and that this limits evolution and/or decreases genetic information is flat wrong.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob...

Answer 11

You begin with a false premise so it is no surprise that you reach a false conclusion.  Of course you’re going to be confused if you are not fluent in the language of science.  

Some definitions:

Evolution means change over time.  The modern definition of evolution is change in allele frequency in a population between generations.  Evolution is a natural phenomenon that is easy to measure.  There is no doubt (at least among sane, rational persons) that evolution occurs.  This no different from observing any other natural phenomenon such as gravity or electromagnetism.  Anyone with the proper tools can measure evolution.  

The problem that many religious fanatics have is with the explanation for how evolution occurs.  They like to hold to the belief that evolution happens because of magic; that a supernatural power is guiding and directing the changes that are observed.  Another explanation for how evolution occurs is the natural theory of evolution by natural selection.  This theory is sufficient not only to explain but also to predict how populations will evolve, something that the invocation of magic is unable to do.

Theory:  The BEST available explanation for a natural phenomenon.  The term theory is applied only to a model that has withstood rigorous testing.  Many creationist and ignorant lay persons use “only a theory” as an attempt to minimize the status of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection but that only shows the ignorance of the speaker.  

Mutation:  Change in the DNA of an organism.  There are many types of mutations so your statement that mutations only “delete or transport (?) certain sections of genes” is wrong.  Mutations range from simple changes in single nucleotides to whole genome duplications.  And, most people are oblivious to the critical role of changes in non-coding regions of the genome.  Mutations, not in the proteins but, in how proteins are regulated are just as important in determining how an organism can react to the environment.  This is a common mistake made by persons who have not studied information theory, genetics and developmental biology.  

The result of mutation is the same for all species.  Mutations generate the raw material for evolution.  Natural selection then works to then screen through these mutations to preferentially propagate those mutations that have a selective advantage.  Evolution happens.  That is a simple fact of life that one must accept.  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains why and how it has occurred.  

There are many steps between a snail and a flying organism and the split in the branches of the family tree happened hundreds of million years ago so it would be ridiculous to presume that a simple mutation would result in a flying snail.  What is overlooked by the believers in magic is the extensive conservation of genes between snails and other organisms.  Why is it that the snail and birds and insects and mammals and plants and bacterial all have the same genetic code?  Why is it that the same signaling pathway using the same related proteins to control the development of bones, cartilage and wings in birds also exist in land-bound animals or in animals without skeletons?  

Genomes are under pressure to constantly change as the environment constantly changes.  Ã¢Â€ÂœInformation” that is present and useful under one set of conditions can quickly become a liability if the environment changes.  Ã¢Â€ÂœInformation” that was useless in one situation can be come quite valuable in another situation with different selective pressure.  New information arises by many mechanisms.  The value of information, new or old, depends on the circumstances.  

Answer 12

Drastic changes did not occur between any parent and it's offspring.  Rather, thousands (millions) of subtle changes add up, over a very long time, to make large changes.

Evolution is slowwww.  And very gradual.  It is also continuous: If you could look at every generation between myself and the ape-like creature that I originated from, there would not be any single generation where you could look at a parent and it's offspring and say "these are of a different species."  

Answer 13

The truth is they can't. Information theory would tell us that you don't get new information from random effects. The evolutionist would say that it can happen step by step but they never do any mathematical models to show this. There just isn't the time needed in the history of the world. Also the fossil record doesn't show gradual step by step changes.

    That's why some evolutionists have changed to "punctuated equilibrium" This basically says that the changes happened fast and in big jumps. This actually makes the problem worse. The odds of making big jumps are way to large to be possible. The reason they say this is because of lack of evidence for gradual change. They say "there isn't any evidence, so that's our evidence."

I have devised a little experiment for evolutionists and lay public to picture why random events do not help increase information. Especially in living things were there is a HUGE amount of information to make even the slightest thing and only a SMALL amount to destroy anything you have already made. With completely random changes, you would hurt all the systems in your body MUCH more easily than you would help the one you were trying so desperately to improve.

Take the phrase "  Is Evolution Even Possible?   "

Write each letter on a pin pong ball. Label the repeating letters "I-1"

"I-2" "E-1" "E-2" and so on. Include the 3 spaces Sp1 Sp2 Sp3.

and the question mark. Put these in a bag and try to draw the correct phrase in the correct order at random.  If you make a mistake, put all the balls back in and start again.  This oughta keepem bizy 4 a wile.

You have always heard, ya but given enough time it is possible. or Monkeys can type out anything on a typewriter if you give them enough time, but you never see the math on it. Well here it is on a simple four letter word.

The odds of accomplishing this task is

1 in 10,888,869,450,418,352,160,768,000,000 thats almost 11 octillion.

If you had a trillion people (almost 150 times the amount on earth) trying this once every second 24 hours a day how long do you think it would take.

345,283,785 years.  345 million years. Just for one simple phrase. Most protiens are hundereds of amino acid links long and then they are rolled into special shapes by other little machines.

Check out this link.  

http://www.colby.edu/chemistry/BC368/met...

This is a metabolic pathway inside one microscopic cell. This pathway is just one of the many many systems in the cell. All the many different kinds of cells work together to make many many complicated systems. All the systems work together perfectly to make you.

In this chart you will only see names for the different points. Every point is hugely complicated enzymes, chemical pathways, switches, ion driven motors, piston pumps, and much much more, ( Im pretty ignorant about molecular biology)

To think this was an accident and to say you can prove it by lining some bones up in the dirt in some subjective way is silly.

Lining up fossils in some way to show how a dinosaur turned into a humming bird as proof actually begs the question and assumes the theory.

Trust your gut honey, God is Good. People are  fools.  

Quote from the bible.

"The fool says in his heart there is no God."