Evolutionists: Please Explain

Hi, Helen. Thanks for contributing some interesting thoughts, as usual . .

I think you realize I believe God designed the whole universe to be able to produce life by virtue of the design of the universe itself; I personally feel no need for any "God of the Gaps" argument. I merely said this in order to show creationists against evolution that the mere assertion that there are unbridgeable gaps doesn't prove anything against evolution as long as they believe in a God Who actively promotes life anyway.

Thank you for the invitation to think about that. I will follow your suggestion and think about that. There. Here is the result of my thinking:

(a) Way back when cellular life was still working out the details of sex, the common thing was for reproductin to be attempted not just a few times in the life of a creature but to try hundreds and hundreds of times. If a lot of eggs are laid, each one having 50% of the genes from the current organism, then the whole genetic structure is actually out there; only not in a single egg, half here, half there, but it is out there, and more than just a single copy at that.

(b) Thinking of the genes of a single organism trying to multiply is one way to think of it, but there is an alternative. You can also think of the genes of a whole colony of organisms trying to multiply. In this case, if some of the genes come from organism a and others from organism b, the resulting organism is just as representative of the genes of the colony as if they all came only from organism a.

(c) Think about a species with a million individuals in it. By chance, beneficial mutation x comes along and gets established in some of them. Also, by chance beneficial mutation y comes along and gets estalished in others of them. With sex, the two mutations can come together into the same organism without any further mutations having to occur, thanks to the gene mixing that sex brings along. Without sex, the line that has mutation x must wait until, randomly, they also get the benefit of mutation y some indefinately long time later. Meanwhile, they must compete with the line that has mutation y idependently. Sex therefore gives the advantage of bringing seperately developed "good" genes together.

This is silly, Helen, how can you possibly learn anything from a computer model unless you use your intelligence to set it up in a way that will probe a particular question? The hallmark of scientific experimentation is to control the variables. I'm sorry that you deplore the use of intelligence to research things - it leaves you blinded to many truths.

If there is such a limit, can you define the limit and state what biological mechanisms enforce the limit? If not, my statement stands.

Of course not. The honor of selecting between good and bad mutations is reserved for the trials of life that the living organism goes through in its efforts to reproduce the following generation that follows next. If it is stuck with "bad" mutations, that handicap will hold it back. If it is blessed with "good" mutations, that advantage will help it along. THIS is the means by which the generations that follow get left with the good mutations only. That is standard evolutionary theory. Thank you for the opportunity to help clarify what standard evolutionary theory really says about how genes are selected for.

We are currently undergoing revolultionary discoveries concerning the nature of the human genome and of course it means we will discover more and more what problems are caused by genetic abnormalities; this growing list, by itself, does not mean we are degenerating as a species, just that we are learning more.

Its like the reported number of child abuse cases today compared to those a centure ago. A century ago people thought very differently about child abuse and the statistics are not comparable.

As for the weeding out of bad mutations, take the mutation that causes Down Syndrom. You agree, don't you, that very few of those with that syndrom go on to have children of their own? That stops the spread of that gene in its tracks.

There are many actual known cases. The development of the single horses' hoof from an earlier three toed animal is well documented. One of the signifigant evidences that this actually occurred is the remaining vestigal "fingers" on the horse leg, which are known as shin splints.

The development of the whale flukes for propelling whales through the water is another. Vestigal hind limbs in whales are occasionally found even today, although they are mostly genetically suppressed. These vestigal hind limbs are evidence that the evolutionary scenario happened, including the development of the flukes that don't fossilize.

There you go again. You say we can't possibly conceive of any way it could have happened, I give you some possible scenarios, you accuse me of merely using my imagination, after I supply exactly what you asked for.

The exact path taken by evolution to get to the full chromosone doubling will never be known, since the only possible evidence wouldn't fossilize. I suspect it would be possible to imagine several possible paths to get there step by step in incremental fashion as demanded by the theory of evolution. Do you think I can't construct such an imaginary path? You think I can? I take that as evidence you should realize such a path is POSSIBLE and therefore the objection that such a path is NOT POSSIBLE has no force.