From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Followup-To: talk.origins
Date: 10 Jan 1993 08:09:08 GMT
Organization: none whatsoever
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu

In article <1imefcINN5om@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike
Hartley) wrote:
 
> It is very important to note that _almost_all_ variations we see between
> sub-species are NOT due to mutations, but rather to the `concentration'
> of different genetic information in the different populations, ALL
> of which information was available in the original stock. The process
> of natural selection is a sorting process whereby different pieces
> of genetic information are sorted into different subspecies.

Sorry, wrong again. The "original stocks" you posit can have only so many
different alleles. No matter how you sort or recombine them, there's no way
you can account for the vast number of species on the Earth today (anywhere
from 3 to 30 million, depending on who you ask.) Also, by your admission,
this process can only account for the formation of new *subspecies*, not
new species. Since one of the characteristics of a distinct species is
little or no ability to interbreed with other species, you'd have a
difficult time explaing how genes incompatible in the "sorted" species can
coexist in the "original".
 
[analogy deleted]
  
> Of course, in real populations, it takes more than one environmental
> change to produce a perfectly homogeneous poplulation. Nonetheless, given
> enough time, no matter how much genetic variety there was in the original
> population, eventually, the individual sub-species will each be
> extremely `pure-bred'.

I assume you by "pure-bred" you mean that for each gene, the two alleles an
organism has will be identical. 

> There may well be some form of cross-breeding,
> but nonetheless, an outside observer (who lived long enough) would notice
> that no new forms of the species were arising. This would be because
> the observer would have already seen examples of manifestations of
> every single allele that was present in the original stock (unless
> some had become extinct before they became manifest).

But the alleles would *change*! (They're changing (if infintesimally) right
now, in the percentage of the cells in your, and my, body currently
undergoing mitosis or meiosis.)
 
> If the information for producing poodles and great danes was there,
> they may well appear. If the information for producing a qwerty is 
> not, it won't. So after a (relatively) brief period of change,
> things would settle down into some kind of equilibrium. By this stage,
> some of the genetic information originally available would have 
> become extinct. In fact, many entire of species would be extinct.
> They will never be seen alive again. All you people who were just
> longing to have a pet Ichthyosaur one day, forget it. :)

They will never appear again because of the vast improbability of their
particular combination of genetic information reappearing by chance. This
is not to say that new species will not arise.
 
> However, this equilibrium would only remain such if no new information
> was introduced into the `gene-pool' of the ecosystem. But this would
> probably not be the case. Random mutations (key-word: random) would 
> produce new `information' of some kind. I hope not every evolutionist
> reading this has just said `Aha: QED' and switched off. The evolutionist 
> who does so is assuming that every so often, one of the random mutations
> would be `beneficial' in the sense of increasing the carriers chance
> of survival. I would like to point out that this assumption is an
> assumption, and not based on observation - since _no_ random mutation
> has _ever_ been observed to be beneficial. Actual observations of
> random mutations do not support the theory of origins by natural
> selection, but rather, serve to weaken the population in which they
> occur. 

You have ignored an intermediate case: mutations neither beneficial nor
harmful will be neither selected for or against. Thus, humans display a
variety of hair colors, since these have no effect on survival. Over the
long term such genetic drift will produce new species. Also, where do you
say that NO mutation is beneficial? Although beneficial mutations are
extremely unlikely, this does not mean they don't exist. (The only example
I can think of right now is sickle-cell anemia, and that has mixed
benefits.)
 
> However, let me give such people the benefit of what little doubt there
> is. Maybe every so often, a beneficial mutation will arise. 
> 
> Question: In an extremely homogeneous populatin, almost at the limit of
> its genetic variation, How fast would random mutations have to introduce
> beneficial information in order to keep pace with Natural Changes in
> the Environment? If one compares the answer to this question with
> the maximum possible rate (based on observation) at which this
> occurs, then IMHO, No way, Jose!

Actually, you have touched on an important problem for a species trying to
survive. Any species which excessively specializes for a given enviroment
(this is the "excessively homgeneous" population you mentioned, where all
members have the "best" genes) will be in deep trouble if said ecological
niche changes or vanishes. Any "generalist" species which is not well
adapted to some niche will be unable to compete with it's better adapted
rivals. The solution is to avoid the twin traps of over- and under-
specialization. I can't remember the exact method by which this is
accomplished right now, but I read it in _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_,
by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan (yes, HIM again.)

> Yours, Mike H....
> --
> Michael Hartley 		    _-_|\  | "All things works for good to
> hartley@madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au     /	 \ |  them that love God - them that
> University of WA ----------------> *_.-._/ |  are the called according to His
> 					v  |  purpose" - Romans 8:28

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)

                               This space intentionally left blank.