From: hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 9 Jan 1993 11:55:24 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

>If you do admit this much evolution can take place in such a short
>time (hundreds of generations) then what objections can you take
>against the extension of the idea to the theory of Darwinian
>evolution as it stands today?

Please refer to the previous article I wrote. Now to answer the question.

What happens if we allow this process to continue for millions of years?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

I would like to draw an analogy here: Take a mixture of fine sawdust,
and salt. This represents our original `mongrelised' genetic stock.
Divide the mixture into two jars. These represent our two populations.
Now, we apply different environmental conditions to the two populations.
We mix one with water - this dissolves the salt, and the sawdust floats
to the top. We heat the other one up (a lot) This burns away the sawdust
(ok, assume it's ideal sawdust, so the heat burns it away completely)
but the salt will be undamaged. Now we have two subpopulations - the salt and 
the sawdust. They look quite different, although each bears some similarity
to the original powder. However, the differences are not because we
have changed the salt into something else - it was there all the time,
only hidden amongst the `genetic variablity' of the original population.
This analogy is intended to help you understand how natural selection
and genetic variation work together, and is not intended as a precise
scientific statement.

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'. 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).

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. :)

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. (NB - I do not support eugenics of any kind - and I do not
believe that it can be supported using genetic arguments. But this
is beyond the scope of this article. I am willing to explain what
I mean via email).

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!

Anyway, I'll sign off now. Thank you for having read this far. 
I hope that you were able to understand what I was saying - 
If not, you could re-read it, or address specific questions 
to me : Michae Hartley, at hartley@madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

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