# What would our daily lives lack had the theory of evolution never been articulated? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053 "2009-02-02T00:05:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/61 "2009-02-08T22:59:35Z")
> [@Ahu\_Ha](#): > > Rightio. > > For it to be “evolution”, as our modern understand of the theory goes, the following would need to happen: > > The drug-resistant genes would, at some stage, have to _ **not** _ be present in any members of the species at all. > > Then, via some kind of random genetic mutation, the drug resistant gene appears in a member/members of the species. This gene is passed on to all subsequent offspring of those members. > > \*\*\*\* Here’s where the OP’s question kicks in \*\*\*\* > > The species is hit with a dose of pesticide, killing all but the carriers of the drug-resistant gene. This is called natural selection (although some might argue this is artificial selection). > > Wha-la. “Evolution”. > > Now, if you crop only from where the OP’s question kicks in.. ahh, no, you don’t have evolution, you have natural selection of existing genes. > > Now, you still want me to show a cite? Yes, because I still can not find a serious paper supporting your peculiar definition of evolution. And everyone can notice that you just ignored the mosquitoes resistance example and cite, that is a good example of taking evolution into account to get the upper hand with malaria. ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/62 "2009-02-08T23:06:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, because I still can not find a serious paper supporting your peculiar definition of evolution. > > And everyone can notice that you just ignored the mosquitoes resistance example and cite, that is a good example of taking evolution into account to get the upper hand with malaria. I didn’t ignore it, I missed it. GIGObuster, if you think it’s “evolution” regardless of whether a genetic mutation was involved _somewhere_ in the process, then you are talking about something other than the modern theory of evolution, hence, no cite I provide will satisfy you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/63 "2009-02-08T23:09:37Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > …but the mutation didn’t appear, it was already present but non- or under-expressed. > > We have to be careful to speak about evolution as something that organisms or species do. It’s not a strategy, it’s random chance. But this sounds like an attempt to separate natural selection from evolution, once again a very peculiar point to make. The point remains that just because a gene is present it is not correct to just say that that is not evolution. > **[Introduction to Evolutionary Biology](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)** > > A must-read for anyone who wants to participate in talk.origins. > This article lays out the land for evolutionists and creationists alike, > presenting the concepts of and the evidence for biological evolution. > [@](#): > > The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England’s industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection. > > Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing – each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/64 "2009-02-08T23:11:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England’s industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection. Yes, an example of natural selection of an existing gene, ie, the “dark moth” gene, which was already present, because there were already dark moths in existence. Natural selection is _not_ evolution, it is _one part_ of the theory of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/65 "2009-02-08T23:12:31Z")
From your own source: > [@](#): > > The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: _ **Genes mutate** _. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/66 "2009-02-08T23:18:56Z")
> [@Ahu\_Ha](#): > > I didn’t ignore it, I missed it. > > GIGObuster, if you think it’s “evolution” regardless of whether a genetic mutation was involved _somewhere_ in the process, then you are talking about something other than the modern theory of evolution, hence, no cite I provide will satisfy you. Not buying that, your lack of a cite and now just protesting that you did not notice, (but also \*\*still \*_not bothering to deal with it_) just points to an attempt to avoid the issue. And showing that you do not even know how to point to a cite that supports your position is now raising red flags. The point here is that I also need to learn where this idea is coming from as repeated searches show more reliable cites that agree with me. Otherwise I will have to dismiss your points as there is no support for them. \*They still call it evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/67 "2009-02-08T23:21:32Z")
GIGObuster, _your own source_ is telling you that genetic mutation is a part of our modern understanding of evolutionary theory. So allow me to link straight back to [your own source](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) and re-state the quote: > [@](#): > > The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. To para-phrase: It’s evolution when: - Genes mutate - Natural selection of those genes occurs - Evolution! ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/68 "2009-02-08T23:23:54Z")
What the hey, another cite just for you. From [here](http://www.icr.org/article/3466/): > [@](#): > > The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation, and specifically mutation that is beneficial to life. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/69 "2009-02-08T23:26:07Z")
> [@Ahu\_Ha](#): > > GIGObuster, _your own source_ is telling you that genetic mutation is a part of our modern understanding of evolutionary theory. > > So allow me to link straight back to [your own source](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) and re-state the quote: > To para-phrase: > > It’s evolution when: > > - Genes mutate > - Natural selection of those genes occurs > - Evolution! The point was that you can not also say that when gene was already present that is not evolution: > [@](#): > > Common Misconceptions about Evolution > > Evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution. Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. Phenotypic changes, like this, induced solely by changes in environment do not count as evolution because they are not heritable; in other words the change is not passed on to the organism’s offspring. Phenotype is the morphological, physiological, biochemical, behavioral and other properties exhibited by a living organism. An organism’s phenotype is determined by its genes and its environment. Most changes due to environment are fairly subtle, for example size differences. Large scale phenotypic changes are obviously due to genetic changes, and therefore are evolution. > > Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism’s success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/70 "2009-02-08T23:30:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > …but the mutation didn’t appear, it was already present but non- or under-expressed. Yes, I know, that’s why my post was an example of a situation where the mutation happened simultaneously with the change in environment to see if that is what **Ahu Ha** was getting at. It wasn’t clear why **Ahu Ha** thought an already present gene that was beneficial given a specific environment was not considered part of the evolution process. > [@](#): > > We have to be careful to speak about evolution as something that organisms or species do. It’s not a strategy, it’s random chance. I don’t think I posted anything that can be mis-construed as implying it is anything but random chance, did I? ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/71 "2009-02-08T23:30:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point was that you can not also say that when gene was already present that is not evolution: Yes I can. You are talking about natural selection, which is not evolution. If random genetic mutations don’t occur, then you can royally kiss the theory of evolution a sweet, wet goodbye. It’s gone. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/72 "2009-02-08T23:30:51Z")
> [@Ahu\_Ha](#): > > What the hey, another cite just for you. > > From [here](http://www.icr.org/article/3466/): :rolleyes: I should had bet $1000 that it was from creationists were those ideas where coming from. (and I pointed out I suspected that before). Yes, there is a point on getting to know where ideas are coming from. And I will just point out that this is evidence that you were pretending to know this subject. ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/73 "2009-02-08T23:36:54Z")
:smack: That’s what I get for posting the first link I click. Here’s a non-creationist [cite](http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html) for you: > [@](#): > > There cannot be evolution without genetic variation in the first place. So there must be mutation and often recombination to generate the different genotypes or the different versions of the genes, known as alleles, which then may or may not make a difference in the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/74 "2009-02-08T23:46:44Z")
> [@Ahu\_Ha](#): > > But again, it doesn’t matter whether a “mutation appeared”, or if Allah created the species as it is, complete with some members having drug-resistant genes. > > What matters is, do we need to know how the genetic variation got there in order to understand natural selection of those genes? > > No, we don’t. I understand, it’s 2 separate questions. My post was an attempt to determine why you appeared to think that change due to a gene already existing (in this case being benificial in a new environment) was not considered evolution. So I constructed an example of an alternative in which the gene appeared simultaneously with the change in environment to see if you were only considering those scenarios to be evolution. I see your posts in which you point out that you don’t consider the single step of “selection” to be the entire “evolution” process, but you then apply that logic to an example (drug resistance) in which all of the normal steps of evolution occured, which doesn’t follow. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/75 "2009-02-08T23:51:23Z")
> [@Ahu\_Ha](#): > > GIGObuster, _your own source_ is telling you that genetic mutation is a part of our modern understanding of evolutionary theory. > > So allow me to link straight back to [your own source](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) and re-state the quote: > To para-phrase: > > It’s evolution when: > > - Genes mutate > - Natural selection of those genes occurs > - Evolution! Which of those 2 steps do you think did **not** occur in the drug resistance example? ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/76 "2009-02-08T23:53:23Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I understand, it’s 2 separate questions. > > My post was an attempt to determine why you appeared to think that change due to a gene already existing (in this case being benificial in a new environment) was not considered evolution. So I constructed an example of an alternative in which the gene appeared simultaneously with the change in environment to see if you were only considering those scenarios to be evolution. > > I see your posts in which you point out that you don’t consider the single step of “selection” to be the entire “evolution” process, but you then apply that logic to an example (drug resistance) in which all of the normal steps of evolution occured, which doesn’t follow. A genuinely probing question here because I don’t know the answer. How do we “know” that genetic mutation occurred in the cases of drug-resistance? Was the mutation observed? Was the gene sequence responsible for the resistance, isolated, and found not to be present in the ancestors? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/77 "2009-02-08T23:57:51Z")
deleted ---
**Author:** ![meara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@meara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meara)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/78 "2009-02-08T23:59:12Z")
Drug resistance is a great example of evolution. To those complaining that the genes must have already existed in the population, that’s the main way that evolution works! Random mutations accumulate over long periods of time, dispersing through the population. Many mutations never make a whit of difference and end up carried along as so much baggage and eventually overwritten by some other mutation. For other lucky genes, there’s a selection pressure that helps them proliferate widely enough to take up permanent residence. Sometimes this selection event is so strong that only the creatures with those genes survive. Another important concept in drug resistance is horizontal transfer. If each species had to individually evolve to fight each new drug, our antibiotics would be a lot more effective. Instead, bacteria are constantly swapping genes (whether through plasmids or the help of viruses) and acquiring resistance to drugs they’ve never actually encountered. Antibiotics are such a losing battle right now that pharmas are reluctant to pursue them. When used widely, even entirely new classes of drugs meet resistance within months or years (especially if cross-marketed for agricultural use). Understanding evolution is critical to the future of microbiology and medicine. Microbes evolve much much faster than humans. We cannot win out in a direct mutation contest, and we don’t see nearly as much horizontal transfer action. If the current tactics and trends continue, we’re going to return to the ages where minor surgery patients regularly die from infection. However, by managing the evolution of the infectious agents (e.g. reducing virulence by reducing exposure rates, using vaccines and narrow-spectrum antibiotics designed to only target harmful strains) and managing our own microbiome (symbiotic organisms / pro-biotics that both help us and crowd out interlopers, and maybe even bacteriophages), we can survive. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/79 "2009-02-09T00:01:28Z")
> [@Ahu\_Ha](#): > > A genuinely probing question here because I don’t know the answer. > > How do we “know” that genetic mutation occurred in the cases of drug-resistance? Was the mutation observed? Was the gene sequence responsible for the resistance, isolated, and found not to be present in the ancestors? Why does it need to be not present in it’s ancestors? We “know” it was produced by random mutation because we “know” that’s how all of the genes got here. It may have been randomly created 3 million years ago and was essentially neutral all of this time until now when it is beneficial, this is still considered evolution despite the 3 million years in between mutation and beneficial use. ---
**Author:** ![Ahu\_Ha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Ahu\_Ha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ahu_Ha)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053/80 "2009-02-09T00:05:41Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Why does it need to be not present in it’s ancestors? Because then it wouldn’t be evolution. Somewhere along the ancestral line, the gene has to not be present. > [@](#): > > We “know” it was produced by random mutation because we “know” that’s how all of the genes got here. Right, well, case closed. Move along folks, nothing to see here. > [@](#): > > It may have been randomly created 3 million years ago and was essentially neutral all of this time until now when it is beneficial, this is still considered evolution despite the 3 million years in between mutation and beneficial use. True, but if you can’t demonstrate the mutation, the you can’t _know_ that it wasn’t always present, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-our-daily-lives-lack-had-the-theory-of-evolution-never-been-articulated/484053.md?page=5)