[quote]Gila Monster said: “There are two major established scientific challenges to applying genetic mutation to NDE theory: mutative effect and probability. In testing and observation, mutations are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism,”[/quote]
Even if it’s not beneficial 99.99% of the time, that 0.01% is enough. When you’ve got millions of members of millions of species across billions of years, those rare beneficial mutations rapidly add up.

[quote]Gila Monster said: “In fact, I’ve not been able to find one example of a verified mutation that is unequivocally beneficial to the host organism,”[/quote]
Your argument that beneficial mutations never occur is simply nonsense. Chemical mutagens and radiation have been used in plant breeding experimentation for over 50 years, providing desirable traits that have been bred into many crops. I recommend you do some research on the benefits of induced mutations, rather than touting your ignorance as proof of something.

“The use of ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons and chemical mutagens for inducing variation, is well established. Induced mutations have been used to improve major crops such as wheat, rice, barley, cotton, peanuts, and beans, which are seed propagated.” – from the science journal Euphytica, March 2001 (source)

[quote]Gila Monster said: “Historically speaking, evolution and creation are both untestable, since past events are unobservable.”[/quote]
Balderdash. The scientific theory of evolution says that the species we see today must have evolved from earlier common ancestors. This makes a testable claim, in that we can look at observable evidence like fossils and genetic similarities, which would either fit or refute that claim. So far it all fits the theory of evolution.

[quote]Gila Monster said: “Instead, science must demonstrate both the possibility and probability that any past event could occur in the present.”[/quote]
This is simply not true. Science doesn’t have to demonstrate the possibility that the big bang could happen in the present in order to provide evidence that it did happen in the past.

[quote]Gila Monster said: “Finally, HiEv mentioned “life appearing gradually in the fossil record.” The “Cambrian Explosion” seems like a DI topic, that might even make a good (though controversial) article. I should look into it more myself!”[/quote]
Sorry I didn’t add the word “usually”, I didn’t expect to be nitpicked. In general life appears to evolve gradually across the fossil record, but there are periods of rapid evolution, called “punctuated equilibrium“, that appear in the fossil record as well. This is not a problem for the theory of evolution, since this “rapid” evolution usually occurs across thousands of years (the term “rapid” is relative to the normally slower pace of evolution.) I’ve seen it happen myself in genetic algorithms, where the fitness of a species slows, and then suddenly “leaps” ahead after one particular beneficial mutation appears.

Still, I do agree that you should look into it more yourself.

[quote]Gila Monster said: “Sickle cell anemia is the common example for human biology, which results in blood clots that slowly kill organs throughout the body, resulting in slow and painful death. I’ve suffered from malaria myself, and it was bad, but I don’t think I would call sickle cell anemia an improvement.”[/quote]
That’s only true if you have two copies of the gene. However, if you only have one copy you still have increased resistance to malaria without the problems of sickle cell anemia. You might not have gotten sick from malaria at all if you had one copy of that gene.

[quote]Gila Monster said: “I’ve read about bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which in practice is due to existing mechanisms in bacteria, not mutations. In the laboratory, a mutation has been found that alters the cell wall, yielding antibiotic resistance, but the bacteria cannot survive in the wild due to the practical effects of the mutation.”[/quote]
Then how exactly do you explain the increased frequency that antibiotic resistant bacteria are frequently found “in the wild”? The simple fact is, as long as we continue to use antibiotics, evolution will favor strains that are resistant to those antibiotics. If we quit using antibiotics, then yes, the non-resistant strains do better, but currently the bacteria you say “cannot survive in the wild” continue to exist in defiance of your claim.

[quote]Gila Monster said: “What I’m saying is that Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory needs a “gain” mutation, where an organism gains a new and beneficial tissue or organ. Anyone know of any examples?”[/quote]
How about this one, where a lizard species was introduced to an island in 1971, and 36 years later it was discovered that it had evolved many new traits, including a never before existing cecal valve? The cecal valve allows the lizards to ferment the plant material in their guts for better digestion. This allowed the previously primarily insectivorous species to become a primarily vegetarian species; an advantageous trait on an island with a lower population of insects and a lot of vegetation.

This is far from the only example, but it’s a neat new one that stuck out in my memory. A little research will turn up many more.

The counter argument that Wolfie raised is that detrimental mutation expressions can be beneficial in the right context. Another common example of this is the beetle that lost its wings due to mutation, which is a benefit on a windswept island. Sickle cell anemia is the common example for human biology, which results in blood clots that slowly kill organs throughout the body, resulting in slow and painful death. I’ve suffered from malaria myself, and it was bad, but I don’t think I would call sickle cell anemia an improvement.

I’ve read about bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which in practice is due to existing mechanisms in bacteria, not mutations. In the laboratory, a mutation has been found that alters the cell wall, yielding antibiotic resistance, but the bacteria cannot survive in the wild due to the practical effects of the mutation. I did some research on DDT resistance in mosquitos (called knockdown resistance), but this appears to be due to a malfunction in nerve cells that impairs proper function in the sodium channel. I’ve not heard of Myxomatosis before, but it appears to be a viral problem, and I couldn’t find how that related to mutation in rabbits. What I’m saying is that Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory needs a “gain” mutation, where an organism gains a new and beneficial tissue or organ. Anyone know of any examples?

I was hoping that my initial comment would generate some discussion on evolution from a scientific viewpoint, rather than philosophical. I interpreted Wolfie’s “high school education examples” comment to be a jab, but it brings out my motivation. My high school biology teacher started the evolution chapter with a stern lecture that there would be no questions or discussion from the class, and that we were expected to answer test questions according to the text book if we wanted to pass. As a teacher and an engineer, I think that curiosity, skepticism, and discussion are essential to learning. That’s how I got to this website, and that’s why I posted. I can understand why the philosophical and religious implications of evolution/creation are both important and controversial, but personally I prefer to keep that as a separate but related discussion.

Firstly why do creationists feel so threatened by evolution? There can’t really be this many fundamentalists christians out there that believe that the bible is completely literal. That must have been one huge ark to fit in two of each of the estimated 1.8 million known species, let alone the ones we haven’t discovered yet or the ones that have gone extinct. So maybe they feel that in some way evolution attacks God. But the main proponent of Natural Selection, Darwin, was a religous man he saw his work as not disproving god but simply showing the mechanisms by which he/she/they worked.

Secondly why do creationists keep using the same arguments against evolution when the evidence is there in front of them.

[quote]Gila Monster said: ” In testing and observation, mutations are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism, and appear to be “loading” the gene pools. [/quote]

Any geneticist will tell you that most mutations are in fact mostly harmless and have little or no effect on the overall organism at all as they are too insignificant to affect the structure or function of the organism. In fact the only detrimental affect of these minor mutations to the genome is the increased energy cost during reproduction.

[quote]Gila Monster said: “In fact, I’ve not been able to find one example of a verified mutation that is unequivocally beneficial to the host organism, yet there are thousands of examples of harmful mutations in human medicine.”[/quote]

Some high school education examples to disprove this point.

Firstly, harmful effects of a mutation are relative to the environment the individual is in(excepting fatal mutation obviously). Sickle cell anemia is a debilatating and eventual fatal genetic disorder transmitted via recessive allele. Due to it being recessive both parents have to carriers of the allele for the disorder to become prevalant in the child. Clearly this disorder would usually be selected against as people with the disease are less likely to pass on their genetic information. However, in Africa and other malaria affected areas the occurances of the disorder are noticably higher than elsewhere. This is due to the fact that the recessive allele that causes sickle cell provides some protection against malaria(although the mechanism is not fully understood). In this case not having the allele is almost as likely to be fatal through malaria as having both alleles and suffering from sickle cell anemia. Therefore the medium is to carry one allele for the disorder. Therefore what would usually be a “harmful” mutation actually turns out to be a useful one.

Finally, there are plenty of examples of evolution and natural selection in action in the real world. Mosquito’s becoming resistant to DDT and other insecticides after the World Health Organisations ill fated attempt to irradicate Malaria. Rabbits becoming resistant to Myxamatosis in Australia. Antibiotic resistant bacteria. Bacteria and viruses crossing species (e.g. avian to human in flu) along with many others.

The scientific argument over evolution is over there simply is too much evidence to support it. The only real arguments left are theological ones over whether it was God, aliens, the spaghetti monster, Elvis or pure chance that started the whole process.

Here endeth the rant!

HiEv and Hsinister touched on a couple of interesting and important points in the discussion of biological evolution. The first is that genetic mutation plays a central role in Ne0-Darwinist Evolutionary (NDE) Theory, since it is the sole mechanism to explain the appearance of new traits (natural selection being used to explain the removal of harmful traits and reproduction to explain the transferral of all traits). There are two major established scientific challenges to applying genetic mutation to NDE theory: mutative effect and probability. In testing and observation, mutations are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism, and appear to be “loading” the gene pools. In fact, I’ve not been able to find one example of a verified mutation that is unequivocally beneficial to the host organism, yet there are thousands of examples of harmful mutations in human medicine. That’s not to say that beneficial mutations couldn’t arise given enough time, but experiments using accelerated mutation have so far failed, and the probability of even a single complex organism arising from mutation is insignificant (see Wistar Symposium No. 5). I think that hsinister’s point is that the burden falls to evolutionary science to demonstrate a viable mechanism for change.

HiEv also touched on Intelligent Design (ID). In other comments, Jason Bellows made the important point that ID is an untestable theory. Historically speaking, evolution and creation are both untestable, since past events are unobservable. If transmutation were demonstrated, a creationist could claim that the species were created first and then transmutated, and nobody could test that statement. Instead, science must demonstrate both the possibility and probability that any past event could occur in the present. From a solely scientific viewpoint, the burden falls to Creationist Theory to likewise identify supporting clauses (such as mass appearance of the species, impossibility of transmutation, and even ID) and demonstrate them.

Finally, HiEv mentioned “life appearing gradually in the fossil record.” The “Cambrian Explosion” seems like a DI topic, that might even make a good (though controversial) article. I should look into it more myself!

tednugentkicksass said: “What? Statements like this puzzle me.”[/quote]
It’s basically another version of the creationists’ irreducible complexity argument, which is basically, “I can’t understand how we got the end result naturally, therefore goddidit.” In other words, it’s an argument based in a failure of imagination. They can’t come up with a way that things developed naturally, so they assume it’s impossible. Then they assume that this means that the only possible explanation is the god of their religion, because they can’t imagine any other solution. Just because you can’t figure out how something is possible, doesn’t mean it’s impossible or that other’s haven’t explained it already, nor is such a problem in one theory proof for any other claim.

To respond to hsinister, no most people don’t believe in evolution “simply cos their told” [sic.], they believe it because of the vast preponderance of the evidence from a number of fields and the fact that it makes successful predictions. Genetics, fossils, medicine, animal behavior, etc… they all support and are supported by evolution. The ecosphere is rather easily explained by evolution, because if anything throws it off, evolution continues, with species dying off and other things evolving to take advantage of the new niches available in the environment, until the environment reaches stability again. Termites and ants aren’t required for life to exist, they just evolved to take advantage of a niche in the environment.

Honestly, creationists are the ones that believe things “simply cos their told” [sic.]. There is no objective evidence for creationism (a.k.a. intelligent design), it isn’t falsifiable, and it doesn’t explain anything, it just pushes things onto something else that can’t be explained, tested, or even shown to exist, God. If people look just at the objective evidence, of life appearing gradually in the fossil record and such, then they would never claim that life appeared all at once. It’s only because they’re told this by religion that they try to claim otherwise.

What? Statements like this puzzle me.