When did you say you had to be ready? August, right? OK . . .
Originally posted by Helen:
OK, a few responses here, and thank you for your patience.
Paul – populations do not stay stable. They are in a constant state of flux in nature. An easy example is right here in our area. On years such as this one when we get late heavy rains, we get lots and LOTS of frogs. That means next year we will have lots and LOTS of gopher and king snakes! And that means that later next year the hawks will be here in abundance as well.
However, with the encroaching ‘creeping fungus’ (our term) of zero lot line housing developments coming up the hills from Sacramento, even that cycle will be severely disrupted. It was also disrupted in the past by droughts, too many rainy years in a row, etc. So although the cycle is general, it is not dependable, and the populations of the involved animals vary widely. There are many other examples in each ecosystem, but that should help you see what I mean.
As far as the human population on this planet goes, our biggest enemy is not numbers but the selfishness of those in power – not necessarily political power. Economic power is the deciding factor regarding starvation, not population numbers. The congestion in urban areas does not help either. Just as a side note here, I was given a book to read (I’ve already loaned it out!) called something like “A Dangerous Place” talking about California. One thing I was only sort of aware of before but which was brought out in sharp detail in the book is that the two most congested areas – the LA area and the SF area – both need to pipe in their water from great distances. An earthquake in the right place and of the right magnitude would cut off water supplies from either one of the areas, causing far more damage in the long run than the earthquake itself.
We are our own worst enemy, and it is not because of numbers themselves!
I certainly admit populations fluctuate. The ratio between predator and prey populations is a classic example of populations fluctuating around a number instead of being steady state right on the average all the time.
But I was trying to suggest the key points of evolution theory for you . . . and that involves limits, death of some, with others left to live and breed. Whether steady state or oscillating erratically about some mean, all populations have to live with that.
When the frogs come back next year - it will be the ones most adept at escaping those gophers and king snakes that will bring on the generation after. That's the point from evolution theory. Suppose that frog jumping muscles were less efficient right now due a poorly implemented energy using protein, and a mutation could improve that protein . . . . . who do you think would live to tell the next generation about the snake that almost got him? And if that mutation only happened once in a million frogs, well, it would happen every year somewhere, wouldn't it?
I was really interested in this from you:
Oh yeah, you have a point there. I observed the phenomenon in my little evolution simulator program. You can put in a beneficial mutation and then run a few generations and its gone! You can see it start to take off and then die out!
What works is a long term series with beneficial mutations coming time and again over many many generations then they finally start to take hold.
In other words, the same mutation has to reappear a number of times. Considering that approximate thousand to one of negative to positive expressed mutations, that really does hand evolution another roadblock, I would think. Yes, positive mutations can and do get overruled by the mixing in sexual reproduction. That’s an interesting program you have been running.
Oh yes, in the wrong hands, running it and checking what happens could be a source of arguments against evolution, even. (there - if that doesn't intrigue you, what will? hee hee - ) But as to the specific point about a single hopeful mutation not taking, bear in mind that the arrival of a beneficial mutation is a random event anyway, and the one that eventually succeeds is also a random event. You could just as easily pretend all those beneficial mutations that didn't succeed didn't even happen and it would make no difference in the outcome. The only question is - out of those that (a) are random and (b) are beneficial and (c) happen to get established as well - do they come often enough and fast enough?
This is where we need to consider populations and how many there are. Where I run a few hundred individuals God routinely whips up millions and millions of them. Also, there is the matter of the "trials" I run, especially at first. Should they be easier, just more of them to reduce the population? I'm beginning to suspect (based on observation of the difference between going from all 8's to 9's and 5's to 6's) that with lots more of slightly easier trials makes the results come out more favorable to beginning those hopeful, good mutations.
I also can't help but think of the single, positive mutation that fails as a metaphor for the good scientific idea that gets out there and fails to gain acceptance, initially - then someone else propounds it and succeeds, gets all the glory - this has happened time and again in history.
Question: why should the same positive mutation appear again and again in a population?
Answer: Because the potential is there. When whales left land and went to the sea one of the things that happened was their shapes became more and more fish like. There are probably many alternative mutations that could have achieved that, and only a few of the near-infinite possibilities were actualized in real whales. Look at dolphins, with that little beak, and compare that with whales and no beak. Different solutions to the streamlining problem.
If you ever play poker, when you win, its not with the same cards, but there are common themes that come out of the winning patterns. That's what happens in evolution. PS I only play for dimes and nickles with relatives, in case anybody is interested, and that about once every 3 or 5 years.
And yes, in all honesty I can say exactly what you asked me to:
Well, why don't you say something like, "evolutionists conjecture that given enough time, these little changes we have see will add up enough to explain the changes they see in the fossil record."
However, in all honesty I would also have to say two other things:
1. We have never seen it happen
2. We are unaware of the process by which these little changes can add up on each other.
Well, we see all of it we have the right to expect to see, in the short time we've been seriously looking! And I'm unaware of the process alledged to STOP the little changes from adding up on each other! (this is the debate over "kind" barrier, what is it, etc.)
On vestiges – I can’t use that except in an historical sense. Well over a hundred vestiges were presumed in humans a hundred years ago and since then we have found that everything considered useless has a use! This has caused the definition of vestiges to change to ‘not its original use’, which is pure evolutionary presumption.
Sure we still speak of vestiges. Take your little toe, for instance. And the one next to it, for that matter. Mention that I can wiggle my ears. Mention the little muscle attached to the immoveable tailbone. Mention those whale hip vestiges. Mention the "dew claw" on cats - and I think on dogs to, isn't it?
The one tree of life I will present as one of the evolution ideas, but you see there are other evolutionists who think that life started several times and that this is the only way we could get the diversity we have now. Evolution is just not a unified field of thought – which is not a negative thing. It has also been shown that morphology does not always agree with genetics, and this is one of the reasons a multiple start has been proposed and discussed in some of the writings.
I don't think you'll find any serious student of life that will argue that the DNA based life didn't all share a common origin. I guess that leaves the question open for a few viruses out there, and I don't know what else. I'm not a scientist, you know.
Strictily speaking, morphology has not been exactly 100% confirmed by genetics, its more like 98 or 99 per cent, and really, this is about what one would expect, isn't it? Considering how some of the cases were marginal and hard to tell - - - kind of like trying to decide if a particular verse in the Bible is best represented by the Hebrew or the Septuagint . . . probably nobody gets that answer perfectly right every time, see what I mean?
The time argument is also sticky, because of both generation time for the larger animals and mutation rates. I will do the best I honestly can here to present the evolution ideas as well as possible.
Recapitulation: I’m afraid it is denied even in theory by too many geneticists and embryologists to even consider it except, again, in an historical sense. I had not planned to talk about it unless it was brought up in the question and answer sessions.
Recapitulation was once proclaimed as if it were a law. It's not a law, but there are recapitulative "vestiges". Like the little fuzzy hair on the human infant that is shed before birth. Like the extra tusks grown by elephant babies that are then absorbed back . . .
Yes, I can present predictive value for evolution.
Fossil history works against both evolution and the one-flood-did-everything scenario of those creationists who hold to that. You see, there are some VERY complex structures, such as the eye of the trilobite, very far down in the fossil record. On the other hand, the lack of mixing is a definite piece of evidence against the one-flood folk. Barry will be dealing a lot with the strata in his geology presentation, so I will only be touching on it.
Trilobites have shells, that's why we have fossils of them. Something happened in the cambrian era that made shells very popular, that's why fossils really take off then. Perhaps an effective predator against larger life forms evolved? Anyway, the eyes evolved before the shells, thats all.
I will try to present the evidence for deep time fairly. There is good evidence for it in several ways and I do want the students to know that just brushing it off is not in their interests – but then neither is insisting on it. There is too much that merits discussion in this area – discussion without insults and mocking….
OK - do you understand my argument from expected slowing of astronomical orbits? "yes" or "no" is all I need for the purposes of this particular thread . . .
About the questions you offered:
1. - What do evolutionists think when they are reminded that the second law of thermodynamics specifies entropy must always increase?
My response would be to remind them that the Second Law of Thermodynamic is about thermodynamics and that they should not be arguing about that. However if they want to discuss the more generalized idea of net increasing entropy, then they need to read up on when, where, and how localized decreases in entropy can take place, because they do. The creationist argument, as I have presented, involves the two points of the design of certain things to decrease entropy under proper conditions (snowflakes, crystals, embryo development, etc.) and the fact that a simple increase of energy input has the general effect of increasing the rate of entropy, not decreasing it unless the energy input is not only modified but able to be used by the receiver. In other words, this is another area which deserves respectful discussion and learning. Please understand, also, that I am assuming most of my audience will have been taught and believe in evolution and long ages!
OK. Not bad! This particular evolutionists always wants to mention that entropy can in fact be allowed to decrease in one area, as long as entropy is allowed to increase even more somewhere else, and that somewhere else can be shoved away out of the area. Like hauling out the garbage and dumping the mop water after cleaning up the house.
2.
- What do evolutionists think when shown a gap in the fossil record between evolutionary steps?
We all know the fossil record is very sparse, especially for non-marine organisms, and that any argument here depends on lack of evidence and is not a good argument to make. What I have seen evolutionists respond to when confronted with this is that of course there are gaps for that very reason! And whether evolution is right or wrong, they are right. That very argument, however, can be turned around for creationists, when they are asked by such and such specimen is not found with other specimen. Rabbits in the Cambrian, men with dinosaurs, etc. Although I have seen the first said in all seriousness, that one has to make me laugh. Rabbits don’t normally live on the ocean bottom!
Well, I think its a good thing to realise that creationists have an even greater gap problem than evolutionists, so again that's not to bad an answer, except in my opinion the total absense of all mammals from mixing with any triboletts remains a problem for the anti evolution crowd . . etc etc
3. - What do evolutionists say about a complex function in a cell that requires more than 3 or 4 proteins to all work together in concert, and thus would seem to be unable to be evolved a step at a time?
They point out that there are known organisms where there is partial functioning or where the proteins involved are performing other duties.
OK, I suppose evolution theory will be not completely mangled beyond all recognition by you in your presentation and maybe, indeed, you will spur some student to think for himself, a result both you and I will be happy to see. May God give you wisdom and guidance!
