Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In order for evolution to work, you have to have a mutation, then ONLY the descendants of that individual propogate the species. Millions of times.
Yet...you fail to comprehend how we could have all come from one Eve.
It's mind-boggling the irrationality you guys hold to.
I thought my explanation was pretty good and easy to grasp but you obviously didn't even try to comprehend it. One Eve means incest because there's only one woman to begin with. That's a big problem right from the start. You're also twisting the meaning of our words when we try to explain it to you. Terms like "pig headed" and "trolling" seem appropriate but since you're also entertaining I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that physical traits that are beneficial are likely to be passed on to future generations? You keep repeating the same statements because you're obviously not able to understand the answers that people are giving you. It's annoying but also entertaining.
If you guys don't have an answer for why you cling to your fairy tales, that's fine. Don't give me 15 links that you got from another message board. Give me your own words.
I hate to say this, but I am losing confidence that you're debating in good faith.
Quote:
In order for evolution to work, you have to have a mutation, then ONLY the descendants of that individual propogate the species. Millions of times.
You do not understand the process of speciation very well. A mutation will show up in just one individual in a population. It can't be a huge mutation, because that'll prevent the individual from breeding. But a minor, beneficial mutation will tend to show up in more and more individuals in the population. This can be accelerated by external circumstances - climate change, subgroups forced to survive on the edges of their preferred niches, introduction of penicilline (if your population is bacteria), that kind of deal.
Eventually, the genetic material in the population will have changed sufficiently that we call it a new species.
Really, if you want to debate this, you need to put in a little bit of book time. You don't show much understanding of what you're arguing against.
Quote:
Yet...you fail to comprehend how we could have all come from one Eve.
I suppose we could have - it's entertaining speculation. It's just that there's no evidence for it in nature.
I thought my explanation was pretty good and easy to grasp but you obviously didn't even try to comprehend it. One Eve means incest because there's only one woman to begin with. That's a big problem right from the start.
How so? She had multiple children...they intermarried. Is that not possible?
Quote:
You're also twisting the meaning of our words when we try to explain it to you. Terms like "pig headed" and "trolling" seem appropriate but since you're also entertaining I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I honestly feel the same about some of you guys.
Quote:
Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that physical traits that are beneficial are likely to be passed on to future generations? You keep repeating the same statements because you're obviously not able to understand the answers that people are giving you. It's annoying but also entertaining.
What does that have to do with the issue at hand? In order for a population of individuals to exist with a trait, they all had to descend from one individual that had the mutation. Are you just not understanding my question? Am I not being clear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I hate to say this, but I am losing confidence that you're debating in good faith.
You do not understand the process of speciation very well. A mutation will show up in just one individual in a population. It can't be a huge mutation, because that'll prevent the individual from breeding. But a minor, beneficial mutation will tend to show up in more and more individuals in the population. This can be accelerated by external circumstances - climate change, subgroups forced to survive on the edges of their preferred niches, introduction of penicilline (if your population is bacteria), that kind of deal.
And that means that any individual within the species that has that mutation must come from the one that originally had it.
Quote:
Eventually, the genetic material in the population will have changed sufficiently that we call it a new species.
Ok....and that species all descended from the original one that had the mutation. You can call this individual "Eve".
Quote:
Really, if you want to debate this, you need to put in a little bit of book time. You don't show much understanding of what you're arguing against.
And I think you're parroting the same answer over and over and over and over and over and over.....blah blah blah without bothering to understand what I'm even asking.
Quote:
I suppose we could have - it's entertaining speculation. It's just that there's no evidence for it in nature.
In essence though, for your fairy tale of evolution to work, there had to have been millions of "Eves". Try to follow along here. Re-read this post a few times if you need to.
And that means that any individual within the species that has that mutation must come from the one that originally had it.
And that any individual which has two inherited mutations must come from the two individuals that originally had them. And that any individual which has three inherited mutations must come from the three individuals that originally had them. And so on. There are a number of inherited mutations which separate us from our nearest living relatives - so unless there was one individual which suddenly acquired all of the genetic differences necessary to be human (which is fantastically unlikely), there's good reason to believe that there wasn't a single woman magically poofed into life from either dust or the rib of a man, depending on which creation story you want to believe.
Quote:
Ok....and that species all descended from the original one that had the mutation. You can call this individual "Eve".
Yep, there must have been a different "Eve" for each mutation which makes us different from other primates. That's why people who understand science don't think there's a single individual ancestor like you're describing.
Quote:
And I think you're parroting the same answer over and over and over and over and over and over.....blah blah blah without bothering to understand what I'm even asking.
In essence though, for your fairy tale of evolution to work, there had to have been millions of "Eves". Try to follow along here. Re-read this post a few times if you need to.
Exactly. It seems you do understand why people have good reasons to reject the idea of a single Eve after all. What do you hope to gain by pretending not to understand?
And that any individual which has two inherited mutations must come from the two individuals that originally had them. And that any individual which has three inherited mutations must come from the three individuals that originally had them. And so on. There are a number of inherited mutations which separate us from our nearest living relatives - so unless there was one individual which suddenly acquired all of the genetic differences necessary to be human (which is fantastically unlikely), there's good reason to believe that there wasn't a single woman magically poofed into life from either dust or the rib of a man, depending on which creation story you want to believe.
I still don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. Basically with each mutation, the species had to "start over", in effect. The line had to die--except for the ones from the parent with the mutation.
How so? She had multiple children...they intermarried. Is that not possible?
I have no idea whether it's possible. It's incredibly unlikely that the species would have survived with a gene pool that limited. And there's absolutley zero evidence of it happening, so I don't see why it merits anything but a shrug.
Quote:
In essence though, for your fairy tale of evolution to work, there had to have been millions of "Eves".
This? This is your silver bullet that should take down ToE?
Ok, try this: There are two defining characteristics of the mythical Eve: She was the first female human. And she was the only female human.
You can argue that someone, somewhere was the first female homo sapiens - it is impossible - not hard, but impossible - to pinpoint, because speciation is so gradual and it's really rather arbitrary at what generation you draw the line - but yes, in a sense she existed.
But she still existed in a population that would allow for interbreeding. Her genetic material did not suddenly and abruptly take over. One specific combination of genes just gradually won out in the brutal selection process. It's not a succession of genetic bottlenecks, like the literal Eve would have been.
It's a bit like the evolution of language. Old English turned into Middle English turned into Modern English, but the generations would still understand each other perfectly well. It's not as if you can point to some bard and say "This guy is the first to speak Middle English, so from this point on nobody spoke Old English." Mutations popped up and gradually edged out less fit competitors. But each mutated version of the language was still understandable to those who used the non-mutated version. (It's a bad metaphor in most other respects, don't make too much of it.)
In other words, you've discovered the concept of a series of common ancestors (which we undeniably have) and tried to make it fit into a metaphor that really doesn't work. Is there a bunch of ancestors that we all share? Yup. Did they have a lot in common with Adam and Eve? Not really.
Quote:
And I think you're parroting the same answer over and over and over and over and over and over.....blah blah blah without bothering to understand what I'm even asking.
I still don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. Basically with each mutation, the species had to "start over", in effect. The line had to die--except for the ones from the parent with the mutation.
First, I'm curious to know what your definition of mutation is. I am often under the impression that there is some sort of thought process incurred upon individuals such as yourself that upon hearing the word 'mutation' often think of some horrid, atrocious deformities that somehow play to the advantage of survival in very rare cases. I can imagine that, in large part, this frame of mind could partially be attributed to Hollywood's image of what the word "mutate" or "mutant" tends to imply. With the X-Men all being called "mutants" and then you have the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or some other creature that looks as though it belongs in the bottom of a Port-A-Potty than in the real world, I could see how your train of thought could drift into that realm.
In all reality, yes, there are a few mutations that can extraordinarily hinder the success of any given organism's ability to pro-create. In fact, we might call children with Down's Syndrome or someone suffering from some other similar handicap a victim of "mutation" gone wrong. In the case of the individual with Down's Syndrome, the addition of one extra chromosome would be to blame.
However, it also seems like most people who have a difficult time with the word "mutate" or its derivatives forget that extraordinarily subtle changes can also be the result of "mutated" genetics. One of the things that immediately comes to my mind was the recent discovery that those individuals who have blue eyes all share a common ancestor. Now, surely you know someone or perhaps yourself have blue eyes. Early in 2008, researchers discovered that there was limited genetic diversity in those individuals who have blue eyes. In fact, the researchers tracked this rogue gene down to somewhere in the vicinity of having happened roughly 6-10,000 years ago.
Now, before you go bouncing off the walls and get your miniskirt stuck in your crack because I mentioned the time as being 6-10,000 years ago, I would like to make mention and note that this was also the time in which human civilization discovered agriculture and genetic variances could have become more rapidly spread.
But, this particular kind of genetic trait seems to be right in line with precisely what you are asking, kdbrich. After all, using your logic, how on Earth could the trait for blue eyes have succeeded with just one blue-eyed "Eve"? Yet it did. Time and time again it has. In fact, one could probably easily think of a person they know, typically in relation to northern European or Scandinavian descent that has blue eyes.
As well, the reason why blue eyes have come onto the scene in the last 6-10,000 years of our existence is because of a gene labeled OCA2. One gene, kdbrich. One slight alteration of that gene. That's all it took to give us blue eyes. Now, I should clarify in saying that had that gene been destroyed, those who carried that trait would have had a much tougher existence. The gene in question is also responsible for supplying melanin which turns our skin, eyes, etc... a much darker color. In essence, had the OCA2 gene shifted to make those who had it albinos, they would have been much more sensitive to things such as sunlight and it very well could have hindered their existence. That is, I should say, a good indication that too large a change may effect the overall survivability of the organism. Thus, the way evolutionary change often works is by exceedingly slow and small patent changes to the offspring.
In the state it's in now, the gene really causes no harm or foul by giving the offspring blue eyes. In essence, this is just a single mutation but a wonderful example of how something such as that could spread through a large portion of the species' populace. Now, of course, the blue eye change doesn't do a whole lot to help or hinder the reproductive process. The only advantage I could see is if blue eyes were to help or hinder the sexual selection process. If, for example, more women and men fell for individuals with blue eyes, then the chances of the gene being carried to further generations would thus be better off. But, what if the gene turned the eye completely white? Well, that could potentially freak everyone out. Heck, it may even hinder the sexual selection process! In effect, the gene for completely white eyes may indicate some sort of sickness or ailment and may make it extraodinarily difficult for the owner of them to find a mate.
So, what you have to understand is how multi-dimensional the idea of genetic spread and drift is. Think of all the genetic components of you body. How tall or short you are, how fat or skinny you are, how smart or dumb you are, what color your eyes, what color your skin is, what are your teeth like, do you get yellow toenail fungus, etc... etc... etc... Each component serves or did serve an evolutionary purpose at one time. Your ancestors ultimately shared the genes that comprise you and make you up. While, say, if you were African-American, you may be more prone to sickle-cell anemia and more resistant to malaria, but if you're caucasion, you may be more prone to malaria than sickle-cell anemia, is one example of the difference in traits that were of evolutionary necessity.
Overall, we did not just pop out of the woods one day as having been the offspring of some sort of monkey. Mutations typically take far too long to immulsify and immerse themselves into the population for that. But, one mustn't forget the extraordinary amount of different possible and potential mutations that could be positively (and in some cases, negatively) affecting the individual offspring. Evolution is a multi-dynamic thing not waiting for each individual "mutation" to complete. But, rather, it is trying and tempting the whole of the ecological niche of the organism that survives within it so as to best carry on to the next generations.
What I mean is that any traits an individual has they inherited from their ancestors. If a mutation is introduced into the gene pool...only the one who had the mutation can pass it down to their offspring. In order to have that trait, you must have that individual as your ancestor.
So, in essence, the species is "starting over" with every iteration of a mutation--only the one that passed on the mutation and his/her offspring can be part of the species. I'm not sure that anyone here has really come to understand my question yet.
What I mean is that any traits an individual has they inherited from their ancestors. If a mutation is introduced into the gene pool...only the one who had the mutation can pass it down to their offspring. In order to have that trait, you must have that individual as your ancestor.
So, in essence, the species is "starting over" with every iteration of a mutation--only the one that passed on the mutation and his/her offspring can be part of the species. I'm not sure that anyone here has really come to understand my question yet.
I'm not sure you understand the definition of "species" One mutation does not a new species make. A mutation is not always passed down to the offspring. I certainly don't know why you think a mutation causes a restart.
For example, I have a fawn pug...His father was black ( a mutation ) and his mother was fawn. He had three siblings, all black...If I had bred him his pups could have been either colour, but regardless of what colour they are they are still pugs, not a new species.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
