Just when you thought it couldn't get any "better" ...

[oxmixmudd]

Yet these are very small creatures - single cell - correct? You would think that with all those mutations, for all those million of years, you would see some serious morphological changes. I mean it can't take that much to change the body plan of such creatures.

OK - so this is where you need to take a step back from the 'impossibility script' that is running in your mind and think a minute about what actually happens in any sort of system like is proposed to drive evolution under the circumstances hypothesized to have kept these bacteria in 'stasis'

First: these are bacteria. Define 'body plan'. Think about what that means in this context.

Second: the hypothesis is that these animals are at a fitness plateu. That is, changes from where they are make them less fit. We could very likely quantitatively measure change in the DNA itself over these 1.8 billion years, but individuals that stray far from the current end result die and can't contribute their changes to the colony (that is what a fitness plateau means) UNLESS the changes produce the same end result as what already exists OR unless the environment for which this is a fitness plateau changes.

So, even though there are changes to the DNA, they must stay where they are in terms of adaptation, in terms of the end result - by definition (this is a fitness plateau).

So what happens is that the changes wonder around varying slightly over time in terms of end result, but not sufficient to jump away from the current fitness plateau - and it remains that way until and unless the environment itself changes.


Jim

[seer]

OK - so this is where you need to take a step back from the 'impossibility script' that is running in your mind and think a minute about what actually happens in any sort of system like is proposed to drive evolution under the circumstances hypothesized to have kept these bacteria in 'stasis'

First: these are bacteria. Define 'body plan'. Think about what that means in this context.

Second: the hypothesis is that these animals are at a fitness plateu. That is, changes from where they are make them less fit. We could very likely quantitatively measure change in the DNA itself over these 1.8 billion years, but individuals that stray far from the current end result die and can't contribute their changes to the colony (that is what a fitness plateau means) UNLESS the changes produce the same end result as what already exists OR unless the environment for which this is a fitness plateau changes.

So, even though there are changes to the DNA, they must stay where they are in terms of adaptation, in terms of the end result - by definition (this is a fitness plateau).

So what happens is that the changes wonder around varying slightly over time in terms of end result, but not sufficient to jump away from the current fitness plateau - and it remains that way until and unless the environment itself changes.


Jim

Jim, whether we call it a body plan or morphology one would think that there would be serious structural change over this period. The same fitness could be realized with a different structure, I would assume, since we have all kinds of well adapted creatures with different morphology. Yes, it seems strange, that they did not develop into something else - something just as fit.

[JonF]

Jim, whether we call it a body plan or morphology one would think that there would be serious structural change over this period. The same fitness could be realized with a different structure, I would assume, since we have all kinds of well adapted creatures with different morphology. Yes, it seems strange, that they did not develop into something else - something just as fit.

List some structures reachable by small incremental changes that would do as well in the environment.

[seer]

List some structures reachable by small incremental changes that would do as well in the environment.

You mean there are not other creatures with different morphology that do well in these environments?

[TheLurch]

You mean there are not other creatures with different morphology that do well in these environments?

Let's back up even further: can you describe any bacterial morphology and how it promotes the species' fitness?

[seer]

Let's back up even further: can you describe any bacterial morphology and how it promotes the species' fitness?

Hell no. But I do know that, if you guys are correct, we all started as single cell creatures and that over millions of years developed in to something completely different with a completely different morphology. But that the creatures in question, over millions of years, with billions of mutations, pretty much stayed the same.

[TheLurch]

Hell no. But I do know that, if you guys are correct, we all started as single cell creatures and that over millions of years developed in to something completely different with a completely different morphology. But that the creatures in question, over millions of years, with billions of mutations, pretty much stayed the same.

I don't mean to be insulting here, but what makes you feel you can engage in the conversation you're trying to have then? You're hammering away at morphology, adaptation, and mutation rates, but don't know anything about any of them. So, even if someone were to give you a formal biological answer, it would be meaningless to you. And, given that, i'm wondering why you keep asking for one.

[seer]

I don't mean to be insulting here, but what makes you feel you can engage in the conversation you're trying to have then? You're hammering away at morphology, adaptation, and mutation rates, but don't know anything about any of them. So, even if someone were to give you a formal biological answer, it would be meaningless to you. And, given that, i'm wondering why you keep asking for one.

Ok, so we have creatures that live 200 million years that don't actually evolve.

[klaus54]

Jor and Seer,

What's the YEC explanation for these data?

Thanks!

K54

P.S. BTW it's "biological evolution" NOT "Darwinian evolution." I know you Fundies use "Darwin" as a cuss word, but please get your lexicon straight.

[JonF]

You mean there are not other creatures with different morphology that do well in these environments?

I don't know. Do you have any reason the believe there are structures reachable by small incremental changes that would do as well in the environment?

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, whether we call it a body plan or morphology one would think that there would be serious structural change over this period. The same fitness could be realized with a different structure, I would assume, since we have all kinds of well adapted creatures with different morphology. Yes, it seems strange, that they did not develop into something else - something just as fit.

IF that were the case, then this would NOT be a fitness plateau. Consider a hypothetical land with a bunch of hills and you are standing on one of them. Now lets suppose that in this land

A) you must travel by land or sea.
B) if you descend below 2200 ft in altitude, the atmosphere becomes thick with sulfuric acid, killing you in just a few minutes. But above that altitude, the air is breathable.

Now let's suppose the hill you are on is at 3000ft, but you can see many other hills around you at the same or higher altitudes.

Q: What is a requirement for you to get from the hill you are on to a hill as higher or higher than your own?
A: you must not have to cross a valley that goes below 2200ft.

Q: Can you reach any of those other hills as high as yours or higher if ALL paths to ALL of them descend below 2200ft for any but the shortest distance?
A: No.

Now this hypothetical hill you are on is like the fitness plateau we are discussing. ALL paths to some other useful morphology pass through extinction. And so, even though other successful morphologies* might exist, there is no path to them from where this organism is through RM+NS.


Jim

*PS other successful morphologies sufficiently different for us to recognize them as such in the fossil record.

[seer]

IF that were the case, then this would NOT be a fitness plateau. Consider a hypothetical land with a bunch of hills and you are standing on one of them. Now lets suppose that in this land

A) you must travel by land or sea.
B) if you descend below 2200 ft in altitude, the atmosphere becomes thick with sulfuric acid, killing you in just a few minutes. But above that altitude, the air is breathable.

Now let's suppose the hill you are on is at 3000ft, but you can see many other hills around you at the same or higher altitudes.

Q: What is a requirement for you to get from the hill you are on to a hill as higher or higher than your own?
A: you must not have to cross a valley that goes below 2200ft.

Q: Can you reach any of those other hills as high as yours or higher if ALL paths to ALL of them descend below 2200ft for any but the shortest distance?
A: No.

Now this hypothetical hill you are on is like the fitness plateau we are discussing. ALL paths to some other useful morphology pass through extinction. And so, even though other successful morphologies* might exist, there is no path to them from where this organism is through RM+NS.


Jim

*PS other successful morphologies sufficiently different for us to recognize them as such in the fossil record.

Jim, this really seems like an ad hoc justification. That other useful morphologies must pass through extinction.

[seer]

I don't know. Do you have any reason the believe there are structures reachable by small incremental changes that would do as well in the environment?

Are there not other creatures, even more complex creatures, that can survive in the same environment?

[JonF]

Are there not other creatures, even more complex creatures, that can survive in the same environment?

I don't know. Do you have any reason the believe there are structures reachable by small incremental changes that would do as well in the environment?

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, this really seems like an ad hoc justification. That other useful morphologies must pass through extinction.

The issue is you are not understanding fitness plateau. The analogy is to help you understand it. But if you do not want to understand it, it won't help.

So assuming you do want to understand it:

if you are as fit as you can be, and movement or change is also a movement or change that makes you less fit:

Why would an animal necessarily change from one that is the most fit (in terms of what is reachable) to one that is less fit? How would NS select for less fit individuals? Why would it?

The hypothesis is that these animals are as fit as they can be based on what they are now. They can't get any fitter by taking any path to change through RM+NS. So how then would RM+NS drive these creatures to change towards some other morphology? RM+NS selects for GREATER FITNESS.

Or to put it another way, given that ALL paths from the current morphology at least temporarily REDUCE fitness,

Q: what do we expect happen to individual organisms that stray away from the current morphology?
A: we expect they will tend to die before they can contribute to the gene pool

Q: How then can their changed DNA get into the colony's gene pool?

Q: What would likely happen to the colony if it did?

Now - take one more step. Let's suppose some less fit DNA become part of the colony, but the reduction in fitness does NOT produce extinction?

Our hypothesis that this is a fitness plateau means that NS will tend to select future changes that LEAD BACK TO THE FORMER PLATEAU.

Are you starting to understand?


Jim