What prevents evolution?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
So, what prevents evolution from occuring?

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientist would ask, "What observation requires it?"

[GBP04]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what prevents evolution from occuring?

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientist would ask, "What observation requires it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

There are tons...

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what prevents evolution from occuring?

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientist would ask, "What observation requires it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I mean, unless he'd read the whole post rather than skipped to the last paragraph.

[Bill Haywood]

The argument I've heard for why evolution cannot occur is that beneficial mutations are too unlikely and complex. Mutations can easily damage offspring, but the complex arrangement of simultaneous mutations required to create something new of significance and benefit is fantastically unlikely. Crap, of course, but that's what they say. I've heard people argue that populations CAN evolve significantly, but only by increasing the occurence of already existing traits. So the famous British moths that darkened during the industrial revolution did so because darker genes already existed in a minority of moths. It wasn't due to a mutation. Under selective pressure, they became more numerous. (Probably right, in this case.)

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
So the famous British moths that darkened during the industrial revolution did so because darker genes already existed in a minority of moths. It wasn't due to a mutation. Under selective pressure, they became more numerous. (Probably right, in this case.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes, and no. The black moths only existed because of a mutation in the white moth population at some point.

[Magic_Man]

I wasn't sure where to put this reply, so I thought I'd start a new subthread. Hopefully it gets noticed.

::Puts on Devil's Advocate hat::
A lot of the discussion in this thread has been between theists and atheists regarding whether or not God allows "chance" to happen. In general, it goes like this:

Atheists: Evolution doesn't require God, it takes care of everything with the element of chance.

Theists: Chance is not enough, and is a poor explanation.

The theists don't like the idea of God allowing random mutations to occur. But the mutations alone (genotypes) are not the only place God can exert his influence. Even given that he allows completely random mutations to occur, can't he interfere with the phenotypes? It seems to me that there are lots of places God, being omniscient, could tweak the laws of physics to achieve a desired result. A bit of chemistry here, a little bio there, vary a few physical constants, and voila, a new heirarchy arises. Similarly, God can alter the advantages/disadvantages produced by phenotypes. A few more tweaks, and suddenly partners with asymmetric faces are incredibly sexually attractive to the opposite sex. Make the climate colder, and suddenly the hairiest cavemen survive. Change the power spectrum of the sun, and suddenly chlorophyl isn't the best chemical for plants to use; their new photosynthesis uses crimsophyl, which gives them a distinct red color. Some insects sensitive to this wavelength can now find them more easily, while others wonder where dinner went.

The point is, God can interfere in many ways. I'm no biologist, but AFAIK the genotype-to-phenotype path is not well understood (in the sense that I mean here), and it would be extremely difficult to predict some of the survivorship advantages even if it were.

If God wanted to allow completely random mutations, he could easily do it. Start with the mutations, then back-create the laws of physics to give the desired result. I have no idea why he would do this, but I never figured out why he hates masturbation either. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] ::shrug::

::Removes DA hat but doesn't let it go far...::

~MagicMan

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what prevents evolution from occuring?

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientist would ask, "What observation requires it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I mean, unless he'd read the whole post rather than skipped to the last paragraph.

[/ QUOTE ]

In which case what? Give it up for science.

[arahant]

These debates are pretty academic, anyway. There is no end to the creativity of theists. In 5000 years, if we understand every last biological detail of every creature on earth, can predict with certainty every new species, and can create a perfect phylogenetic tree for the complete history of life, back to the first molecule, there will still be some group of people who says 'yeah maybe, but god set it up that way'. The history of religion for two millenia now has been a gradual retreat from facts in the face of increasing knowledge about the world, and it will continue this way for awhile until 10 generations after we've explained everything.

And when religion is wiped out, someone will dig up this forum post, proclaim this a prophecy, and start a new religion based on my life's work. Which is funny, because my life's work involves making tiny little caskets for dead beetles that i find in the park.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no end to the creativity of theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too funny.

Perhaps we should establish that "evolution" happened at all before feeling the need to reconcile it with intuition or inspiration.

Or is your sciencey faith supposed to be the default?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should establish that "evolution" happened at all before feeling the need to reconcile it with intuition or inspiration.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty hard to establish when all we have to work with is evidence.

luckyme