# How Does Biological Evolution Deal With This?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [November 25, 2019, 4:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579 "2019-11-25T16:23:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rich\_Hampton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a88e4f/32.png) [@Rich\_Hampton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rich_Hampton)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2019, 10:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/182 "2019-12-05T22:56:33Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> we have billions of people in the wrold. and we never seen someone who evolved say a new organ part like a part of a wing or a new part of an eye etc. so the chance to get a new anatomical part is probably lower than few billions. at least from what we can see in the real wrold. do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. For example, while most of us have trichromatic color vision, a rare percentage have tetrachromatic color vision.

> While trichromats can see about [1 million colors](http://www.neitzvision.com/img/research/CV-ReasonForEyes.pdf), tetrachromats may be able to see an incredible 100 million colors, according to [Jay Neitz](http://www.neitzvision.com/), PhD, an ophthalmology professor at the University of Washington, who has studied color vision extensively.

Another fine example is [synesthesia](https://www.livescience.com/60707-what-is-synesthesia.html). I assume these are neutral mutations since they don’t seem to help nor hurt survival.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rich\_Hampton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a88e4f/32.png) [@Rich\_Hampton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rich_Hampton)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2019, 11:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/183 "2019-12-05T23:06:28Z")

</div>

Related to this is supernumerary organs. In addition to extra teeth and nipples, extra kidneys and spleens, for example, have been discovered in perfectly healthy people. I can see where a mutation to such an organ could lead toward a new or additional function, and after many generations, a wholly new type of organ.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Falter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/chris_falter/32/3811_2.png) [@Chris\_Falter](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chris_Falter)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2019, 4:42am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/184 "2019-12-06T04:42:42Z")

</div>

Hi scd,

> [@scd](#):
>
> so if we assume that one in billion sequences is functional and say that the first mutation is now in the population. what next? we need the second mutation and it will take about billion more mutations. but till we will get the second mutation _ **i think** _ that the neutral mutation will be lost since it will get many mutations that will remove\change it. _[emphasis added]_

You have **speculation**.

Lenski and the rest of the biological community have enormous amounts of **data** that **contradict** your speculation. Neutral mutations sustained across tens of thousands of generations have been documented. A series of neutral mutations accumulated over millions of generations resulted in antifreeze proteins in Arctic fish. Biology journals abound with peer-reviewed studies about neutral mutations sustained over very long times and fixed, eventually, when they contributed to new functionality.

Dozens of such neutral mutations have been observed in the LTEE alone.

So let’s see: I have to choose between your speculation, on the one hand, and peer-reviewed data and studies on the other. I think I’ll go with the peer-reviewed studies.

Best,  
Chris

 ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/2/270fd639dc63ef17bb2b8a4ca73e48f3f0ad3c94.jpeg)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2019, 12:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/185 "2019-12-06T12:30:33Z")

</div>

> [@Rich\_Hampton](#):
>
> Disagree. For example, while most of us have trichromatic color vision, a rare percentage have tetrachromatic color vision.

That doesn’t answer @scd’s obection. He is asking about the evolution of “new body parts.” So, according to his scientific understanding of the theory of evolution, we should be seeing a child born tomorrow with completely new light sensing organs, completely unlike eyes, sprouting out of his head, or some other bodily location, capable of perceiving EM radiation frequencies the rest of us cannot us perceive visually, thru some sense beyond the ones we all have.

Because @scd understands evolution so perfectly well, of course!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2019, 12:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/186 "2019-12-06T12:39:31Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@scd](#):
> >
> > what should i say?
> 
> What you think is your best response.

I suspect that is his best response.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 6, 2019, 12:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/187 "2019-12-06T12:40:11Z")

</div>

Yeah seems like the air was let out of that balloon.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 12:15am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/188 "2019-12-08T00:15:41Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> > Do you really not realize, after all you’ve posted (and possibly read) here, that evolution never happens to individual organisms, that it can only happen to populations?
> 
> how is this relevant to the number of mutation that we need to a new anatomical part?

It’s highly relevant that you have no idea how biologists understand evolutionary mechanisms to work. You are using la falacia del hombre de paja.

> [@scd](#):
>
> and by the way evolution in a population need to start first in individual organism after all.

No, evolution only happens to populations. This is as basic as it can be, but you don’t understand this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 1:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/189 "2019-12-08T13:30:36Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Then why would you expect a new anatomical part to suddenly appear in the human population?

i dont. i actually assume a minimal bar for a new part. if a new part take more mutations then my point will be even stronger.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> If one in a billion sequences in functional (and I don’t know where you got that number from, but let’s go with it) how to you go from that to concluding that it would take a billion more mutations before the 2nd one occurs?

if in general a functional sequence appeare one in a billion mutations, then we will need more billion mutations after the first functional sequence appeared.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> You have not specified what you mean by “a new anatomical part.” Are you talking about something like a human child being born tomorrow with functioning wings attached to his back,

not a complete wing but at least a part of it. say a feather part:

![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/8/807bb1a47ee0669a6c2868c367553ed1f85ae569.jpeg)

(image from [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/270778996321044823/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/270778996321044823/))

> [@Rich\_Hampton](#):
>
> Disagree. For example, while most of us have trichromatic color vision, a rare percentage have tetrachromatic color vision.

first, i dont think that this case is about new part but about a variation in the visible spectrum. second, according to evolution mammals lost their tetrachromatic ability. so maybe its not even a new function but a function that reappeared in humans.

> [@Rich\_Hampton](#):
>
> extra kidneys and spleens, for example, have been discovered in perfectly healthy people.

ok, but its not something new. just a duplication of existing parts.

> [@Chris\_Falter](#):
>
> Lenski and the rest of the biological community have enormous amounts of **data** that **contradict** your speculation.

i dont think so. first we are talking about bacteria here. so its not the same as animals. second im talking about a new system that need at least several new anatomical parts. again: its not something that we can see in bacteria experiments.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> No, evolution only happens to populations.

but any new trait in a population need to appeare first in individual. so or so its irrelevant to what i said in the first place, so this have nothing to do with my argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 3:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/190 "2019-12-08T15:00:06Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> if in general a functional sequence appeare one in a billion mutations, then we will need more billion mutations after the first functional sequence appeared.

That’s not what you said at first. You based you claim on the fact that we see no “new parts” in the people now on earth. Nothing about the frequency of functional sequences. Do you even understand you own argument?

In any event, the fact that you possess 100-300 new mutations that neither of your parent possess, yet are still functioning nornLLY (at least in some respects) demonstrates that your 1 in a billion claim is way, way off.

> [@scd](#):
>
> not a complete wing but at least a part of it. say a feather part:

Ah. So according to your understanding of evolution, it would predict that a human child should have recently been born who was covered in feathers.

Thanks for further confirming you have no clue whatsoever about evolution.

BTW, here is some info on how feathers evolved:

> **[How dinosaur scales became bird feathers](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42082489)**
>
> The genes that caused scales to become feathers in the early ancestors of birds have been found by US scientists.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/191 "2019-12-08T16:08:47Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> You based you claim on the fact that we see no “new parts” in the people now on earth. Nothing about the frequency of functional sequences.

its bascially the same. if in say 7 billion people we see no new mutation that produce new anatomical part then we can conclude that the chance to get a new functional sequence is less than 7 billion mutations.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> it would predict that a human child should have recently been born who was covered in feathers.

no feather but at least a part of it if my minimal bar is correct. i never said that evolution predict this so dont make claims that i never claimed.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> BTW, here is some info on how feathers evolved:

from the article:

“The reason the gene doesn’t cause the development of a fully feathered alligator is that unlike birds, alligators don’t have the underlying genetic architecture evolved to support these central feather-making genes”

" but hints at five separate genetic processes active in birds that needed to work together to create modern feathers"

so we need more genes to evolve feathers from non feathers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 4:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/192 "2019-12-08T16:40:51Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> its bascially the same. if in say 7 billion people we see no new mutation that produce new anatomical part then we can conclude that the chance to get a new functional sequence is less than 7 billion mutations.

Completely wrong.

“Functional” means merely that it has phenotypic effects.

Your definition of “new body part”, OTOH, pertains to something that would likelyl never happen if evolution is true.

> [@scd](#):
>
> no feather but at least a part of it if my minimal bar is correct.

So how would you know if a child was born that did not have a slight, barely noticeable, variation that, a million years from now, would turn out to have been the presursor to a “new body part”?

> [@scd](#):
>
> from the article:
> 
> “The reason the gene doesn’t cause the development of a fully feathered alligator is that unlike birds, alligators don’t have the underlying genetic architecture evolved to support these central feather-making genes”
> 
> " but hints at five separate genetic processes active in birds that needed to work together to create modern feathers"
> 
> so we need more genes to evolve feathers from non feathers.

Exactly.

Now, can you see how this explains why the presumptions of your argument are wrong? You should.

If not, see if this helps: You have admitted that alligators have features that represent the early stages in the development of feathers.

Now, if you observed an alligator, but had no knowledge of the existence of organisms that possess feathers, would you identify an alligator as an organism that meets your “minimal bar” for the development off a new body part, ie. feathers?

You’ve just shot down your own argument, whether you realize it or not.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/193 "2019-12-08T16:42:56Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> not a complete wing but at least a part of it. say a feather part:

But none of this is irreducible, right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/194 "2019-12-08T17:09:40Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> so we need more genes to evolve feathers from non feathers.

That isn’t actually clear from what is being quoted. It might be we need mutations in several, already existing genes, to recapitulate the evolution of scales into feathers. That doesn’t mean we need “more genes”. Perhaps they’re just expressed differently.

But even if “more genes” are required (which would just be novel regulatory pathways), that can rather easily happen by gene duplication.And there’s no reason to think lots of such mutations couldn’t occur and get fixed on million-year timescales.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/195 "2019-12-08T17:40:08Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> > No, evolution only happens to populations.
> 
> but any new trait in a population need to appeare first in individual. so or so its irrelevant to what i said in the first place, so this have nothing to do with my argument.

No. There merely needs to be a tiny step in that direction, not what you are calling a new trait. In the case of the OP, an individual that is greener than most is all that is necessary to start evolving that camouflage.

Your arguments are based on your being ignorant of the most basic evolutionary mechanisms. Perhaps you should learn ANTES DE ATACAR?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/196 "2019-12-08T17:46:57Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> " but hints at five separate genetic processes active in birds that needed to work together to create modern feathers"
> 
> so we need more genes to evolve feathers from non feathers.

You clearly don’t understand how genes work. “Genetic processes” doesn’t mean “more genes” or “new genes.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/197 "2019-12-08T17:49:12Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> And there’s no reason to think lots of such mutations couldn’t occur and get fixed on million-year timescales.

And there’s no reason to assume that selection does not act on existing genetic variation, but that’s what virtually every evolution denialist seems to do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/198 "2019-12-08T17:54:59Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> It’s highly relevant that you have no idea how biologists understand evolutionary mechanisms to work. You are using **la falacia del hombre de paja.**

Note the last six words in bold.

In the mail I received when @scd first responded, @scd wrote:  
but any new trait in a population need to appeare first in individual. so or so its irrelevant to what i said in the first place, so this have nothing to do with my argument. so you are the one who _ **actually use a straw man here** _, not me.

Then later, for some reason, @scd deleted the reference to a straw man.

So, if @scd actually is an Israeli, why did s/he so seamlessly translate what I wrote in Spanish?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/199 "2019-12-08T18:05:37Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> And there’s no reason to think lots of such mutations couldn’t occur and get fixed on million-year timescales.

And there’s no reason to assume that selection does not act on existing genetic variation, but that’s what virtually every evolution denialist seems to do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 6:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/200 "2019-12-08T18:51:41Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> variation that, a million years from now, would turn out to have been the presursor to a “new body part”?

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> But none of this is irreducible, right?

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> But even if “more genes” are required (which would just be novel regulatory pathways), that can rather easily happen by gene duplication.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> There merely needs to be a tiny step in that direction,

you know what guys? lets say (just for the sake of the argument) that the IC argument is wrong. even in such a case we cant realy prove that comon descent is true without using faith. so i see no big difference if IC is true or not in either case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/201 "2019-12-08T19:07:42Z")

</div>

Translation: “Wow, I sure got my ass handed to me on a platter right there. I obviously have no clue what I am talking about. But my religious faith still won’t allow me to accept evolution, so I’m just going to continue to deny it, no matter what.”

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579.md?page=9)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579.md?page=11)