Or well guessed. The error you both make is in the error of believing the other to be in error. I suggest we all indulge ourselves in some homology.
If someone tells me (in a forceful manner) that I've got it wrong, I tend to respond forcefully. And I'm not really happy about a mod telling me that it's my fault that someone has the "wrong idea" because I've "lead them down a path", and I'm the belligerent one. Sorry, but I'm the kind of guy who responds. If someone gets belligerent and forceful about their opinion of things I've said (posted here), I respond with stuff that I think reflects the same level of belligerence. You're going to have to ban me if you want this to stop. And furthermore....
What would I gain other than more silly questions you would expect me to answer. Sorry that you fail to differentiate between sagacity and whining.
" Genes get adapted by the organisms......." " A gene is a tool" You are totally out of your depth but you will not be told. You are living proof that evolution is blind, which is something you cannot understand. As you are not prepared to make an effort to inform yourself. it's reasonable to assume you are the product of some ID outfit. The only people you'll convince with your misguided utterances and erroneous assumptions are uninformed people such as yourself. I shall now place you on ignore.
A gene is a tool. A genome is a toolkit. Myles is a living example of how a human mind can become totally lost in their own, self-centred, idealistic thoughts. Someone should tell him to get lost, but he already is.
Vkothii you are quite the rudest person I have encountered on these forums for some time. You also appear to lack an appreciation of the difference between teaching and preaching. Unlike Myles I shall probably not place you on ignore. I find your brand of intransigent obnoxiousness can be quite educational in its own way.
But what possible purpose could you have imagined, in posting the above? Rude is as rude does. You aren't or you don't want to see this as an argument between two obviously opposing points? He thinks he's right, and I'm wrong. He gets quite personal and rude about it. I think I'm right, and he's wrong, I get personal and rude about it with him, I reflect it right back. Preaching is something we all do. Or is your post from a different kind of pulpit? P.S. You really haven't seen rude yet - but I have no intention of taking this beyond pot-shots at other intransigent points of view. And if that means being "rude" (like so many others) so be it. Aren't you just being precious? Should I care?
I did not imagine a purpose. I had a purpose, or rather purposes. One of these - the primary one - was achieved: it made me feel better. The second one - a minor purpose - I had little hope of achieving: to shock you into contemplating your behaviour and re-evaluating how it is perceived by others. There is a misunderstanding on BillyT's side of what adaption means in evolution. I have addressed this in my earlier post, clearly coming down on your side in the matter of facts. What I have found unpleasant in your posts - and what I commented on - was a snide manner and a skirting of the central issues. I wasn't preaching. I was communicating an opinion. . Only if you want your views to be taken seriously.
I would appreciate it if you specifically told me what you think I misunderstand about the role of adaption in evolution. I have stated there is none and told my reasons for that. It is true that the chance variations, already existing within the gene pool, will cause some individuals to be better adapted to some change in the environment; But they do not ADAPT to the change. They are already with the more survivable genes and are SELECTED by the changed environment. For example, those individuals with a set of gene that produce more than the average amount of body hair may be favored as the CLIMATE’s average winter temperature changes to ice age conditions. The do not “adapt” to the colder weather. They are “selected” by it. Others, LACKING THE FAVORED GENES, (I.e. with little body hair), may adapt by putting on a sweater etc. The effect of these “little-fur” types adapting with a sweater, is only to REDUCE the competitive advantage of the “hairy body” types. Thus, quite the contrary to what has been suggested by Vkothii in ignorance, adaptation only reduces the effectiveness of the true agent of evolution, which is SELECTION OF EXISTING GENENETIC VARIATION (I.e. parts of the gene pool which do not need to adapt). I.e. SELECTION of the CHANCE MUTATATIONS that are already better suited to reproduce in the changed environment without the need to adapt. I think many, perhaps even your, are confused and do think the fact that some already existing genes produce individuals that are better adapted (note the passive tense) to the changed environment, which selects (note the active tense) or favors for reproduction. The selected individual is not “adapting.” Adaptation REQUIRES your action – it is not a passive thing that happens to you. (E.g. putting on a sweater when cold is adaptation. Having genes that made your body hairy is not.) Do not be embarrassed. – Many do not think clearly about this. Perhaps something in my prior posts was misunderstood by you? For your convenience, below is what I have said about adaption earlier. (If you now agree with me, there is no need to read the following again.) In post 52 I said: “…the reproduction of the existing genetic material is not "evolution. The first pre-human ancestor of man to stand up on the hind legs may have been adapting to some genetic defect, which made the "knuckle walking" all his brothers and sisters did more difficult for him. In his more vertical position - he may have seen the pride of lioness advancing thru the grass sooner and be the first one to make it up into the distant tree. (Sadly only one of his normal brothers did too.) This is NATURAL SELECTION OF A GENETIC CHANGE THAT OCCURED BY CHANCE. Nothing to do with "adaptation" or "direction." … That normal (not any genetic defect - a regular "knuckle walker" type) brother was just lucky and happened to be hear the tree, but he noted that his genetic defect brother has been the first to see the approaching lions, so he adaptively changed his behavior, and periodically stood up to look around when in tall grass. - I.e. because of his adaptation, he passed his "normal" non-evolved genes down too. If only the non-defective, same old genes pass down - no change in the gene pool - then there is no evolution taking place. Some creatures are already very well adapted to their environments and all of the genetic defects that have occurred have been less adapted. That is why some turtles, alligators, fish, etc. have not changed for millions of years. ..." In post 50 I said: "... ADAPTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION because it makes no change in the genetic information of the individual making the adaptation. That genetic material is changed by copying errors and environment damage, such as cosmic ray, certain chemicals, perhaps viral attack on the genetic material record, but never by an adaptive behavior the individual may learn and adopt or discover by accident. Behavior, adaptive or otherwise, can only change the individual. - For example build his mussels but not his stored genetic information (his genes). ..." In post 45 I said: '... Its normal (non-defective) "perfect copy brothers", for example, the billions of bacteria which do not carry its "defect" do not (they can not) adapt to a change in their blood steam environment that an injection of penicillin makes, so they die. The "defective" individual did not adapt either - it just happened by chance defect to not make the sites on its skin for the penicillin molecule to attach to, so it lived and divided ever few hours and soon was the dominate design for that bacteria, perhaps growing so numerous that it killed the man (and eventually all of its children during the cremation of the man's body). THERE IS NO ADAPTATION. THERE IS NO PURPOSE HERE. THERE IS NOTHING "DIRECTED" HERE. TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS, is what I called NONSENSE. ..."
Nonetheless, Darwinian evolution implies adaptation. The fact genes are tools implies usage, and so variation in usage (adaptation to more than one use). I have evidence from here and there of an example of adaptation of genes in prokaryotes, and a link to eukaryotes from the same gene; and lots of examples of homology, which is also the same thing as adaptation. The species as a whole adapts, not individuals. Individual genotypes or variations are toolkits, which use tools (as organisms) and pass the toolkit on, right? So the genome that survives is the one that represents the best of the individually adapted toolsets. Any changes in the toolkit during its use are probably detrimental (it's a low probability that a chance mutation will be favourable - advantageous to an individual genotype). Why such a big deal with purpose or direction? Why are you so adamant there is none of either? That is, do you know much about biochem or genetics? I mean, really...
Spud cautiously nudges Vkothii with eleven foot barge pole to see if he's for real. Whoops big mistake! Let sleeping dogs lie they said, no, second big mistake! Hmm! Spud evolves an idea and prepares to adapt it at will where required..resolves to agree with everything Vko...can I just call you biscotti?( it's my association technique) says and calm the rabid beast. Can Spud agree with everything Vkothii says and derail his antagonistic demeanor? Can I do this and simultaneously undermine him with slurs and derogatory euphemisms he won't have a chance in God's hell of understanding?
Certainly. These observations are taken from The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, by S.J.Gould, largely because I have a copy to hand and it is a work by a recognised authority on evolution. 1. page 117 footnote ....Darwin, in borrowing the term, followed an established definition while radically revising the cause of the phenomenon. 2. page 254 .... And Darwin now makes his fundamental choice by affirming fealty to the English lineage of adaptationist thought. He argues that ancestral structures, forming the greta homologies of Unity of Type, initally arose by natural selection, as adaptations to "organic and inorganic conditions of life" in ancestral environments....... The old dichotomy, in fact, expresses no clash of opposites at all, but only marks the temporally sequential representations of one dominant position in evolution - adaptation by natural selection. {My emphasis.} 3. page 662 ....examples based on genuine species adaptations (for an emergent character that evolved as a consequence of its value in fitness is, ipso facto, an adaptation);.... I could produce a hundred such quotes from this single work, all of which seem to me to place adaptation at the heart of evolution. You deny this and though I probably know you better than Steven Gould I feel I must adopt (not adaptPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) his perspective on the subject. Or, if that is not convincing consider this quote from On the Origin of Species: There is no reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have acted under nature. In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for Existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of Selection. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common, to all organic beings. This high rate of increase is proved by calculation,—by the rapid increase of many animals and plants during succession of peculiar seasons, and when naturalised in new countries. More individuals are born than can possibly survive. A grain in the balance may determine which individuals shall live and which shall die,—which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct. As the individuals of the same species come in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the same genus. On the other hand the struggle will often be severe between beings remote in the scale of nature. The slightest advantage in certain individuals, at any age or during any season, over those with which they come into competition, or better adaptation in however slight a degree to the surrounding physical conditions, will, in the long run, turn the balance. Here Darwin summarise the very heart of his thesis, and adaptation is a key element within it. BillyT, you are arguing for a different meaning of the words, that while valid and plausible does not match the usage of biologists from Darwin to Gould (and likely all those between). Therefore, I believe you are mistaken.
In your siteations I have made the three word that follow adaptation all capitals as that again confirms exactly my OFTEN STATED POINT - Namely that Natural section can only SELECT beween the EXISTING variations. No adtation by an one or any genes. No direction for evolution. It is just a long sting of CHANCE MUTATIONS that produces a new species. Yes that new speies is more fit (or better adapted) to the changed enviroment that the one which died out. BUT ADAPTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION - IN NO WAY DOES IT PALY ANY ROLE. IN NO WAY IS PART OF THE CAUSE - IT IS THE RESULT (of Selection amoung the ALREADY EXISTING EXISTING varieties with in the geen pool.) I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH GOULD (and DARKIN, etc.) If you do not think so, I again ask you to specifically quote any place where I am wrong or misunderstand. First time I asked this, I even collected in one location my comments on adaption from three different posts for your convenience, but you only site text with which I fully agree and which like me specifically states that evolution is achived by SELECTION, NOT BY ADAPTATION -AGAIN ADAPTATION IS THE RESULT not how evolution works or happens.
Given. Genes don't adapt by themselves, they get adapted. A screwdriver doesn't use itself. And the adaptation of advantage that any chance mutation, happens to bestow. But clearly, it does "play a role", it's the player, genes are the "role". Ask Spud, he's a dap tater.
Wood ashes have nothing to with combustion - Ashes are the result/product of combustion. Adaptation has nothing to do with evolution. - Adaptation is the result/product of evolution Selection among existing variations makes evolution. Selection, not adaptation, causes evolution. Organisms may adapt*, but that adaptation has nothing to do with evolution. (Genes cannot even adapt!) Random changes make variation in the gene pool, which can be selected to cause evolution. Thus evolution is not directed. It is selection operating on different chance happenings. ------------ *For example, put on sweater when it is cold. From Post 37: Nonsense. adaptation is a RESULT of selection action on chance variation
I have cited it because it is a summary of Darwin's view of his own theory and that summary does include the word adaptation, which I have highlighted for your benefit. There is no reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have acted under nature. In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for Existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of Selection. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common, to all organic beings. This high rate of increase is proved by calculation,—by the rapid increase of many animals and plants during succession of peculiar seasons, and when naturalised in new countries. More individuals are born than can possibly survive. A grain in the balance may determine which individuals shall live and which shall die,—which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct. As the individuals of the same species come in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the same genus. On the other hand the struggle will often be severe between beings remote in the scale of nature. The slightest advantage in certain individuals, at any age or during any season, over those with which they come into competition, or better adaptation in however slight a degree to the surrounding physical conditions, will, in the long run, turn the balance. It is clear in this passage that Darwin views adaptation as part of the process of evolution, not simply its consequence. (Or it certainly seems clear to me.)
You've got this backwards. Selection is a result of (or results in) the best adapted variations. Selection is a pressure on a genome, something that deforms or "hones" it to fit better. Results are what we look for. Genes get selected (by external conditions, like a boundary for the genome, which represents all the individuals, or the individuals are representatives of the genome). A species is the fittest representative, if you will. You're only looking at half the process of evolution, "Darwin-style". The other half is adaptation and survival (thus replication). You're not completing the circle. Darwin clearly sees two agencies at work: variability and adaptation. Variability is presented, the environment selects the fittest variations. The agency of selection. Adaptation is use of the toolset (gene complement), which is directed at survival and replication. The agency of adaptation.
Oh, thanks so much. Now I understand the process of combustion also. Previously I thought: Wood ashe has nothing to do with the process of combustion - Ashes are the end result/product of combustion. Adaptation has nothing to do with the process of evolution. - Adaptations are the end result/product of evolution. Now I realize that ashes make "pressure" on the process of oxidation /combustion.* This "deforms or hones" combustion to completion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is just one thing I do not understand still: What is the mechanism by which adaptation makes this "pressure" on the genes?* (This is because adaptation is something each indivudual organism does.** Adaptation REQUIRES some action, like putting on a sweater. Adaptation is not a passive process, like rain falling on you, but your opening an unbrella would be an adaptation to the rain falling.) I.e. how does adaptation change even one gene? Is there some part of genetic chemisty I am ignorant of? I mistakenly thought only things like cosmic rays, modified genes and then the enviroment (not adaptation) favored some of the variations that already existed. I confess: I do not yet understand the process by which adaptation changes genes like cosmic rays can. Perhaps you will expalin how adaptation directs the chemical change / structure of genes as you stated in post 37 to make some individuals more "fit". We both agree that the end result of evolution is that the species change to be more fit, but I mistakenly thought this was accomplished by SELECTION of some variations that chance created. We are, however, discussing the PROCESS called "evolution" - I.e.how it works and whether or not it is "directed", "purposeful" etc. (You say "yes". I say "no.") - I still do not see the "direction" adaptation gives to the process of evolution or how evolution is "purposeful"? PS to Hipparchia: Yes I was mistaken the word adaptation does appear once near the end of your text in Italics, but it is only in the phrase: "...those with which they come into competition, or better adaptation ..." clearly again emphasizing that it is the selection of those with genes already changed by chance that are more fit in the competive struggle for sending your genes down into the next generation. Not the slightest hint that adaptaion is directing or causing any part of the slow transformation of the spieces into a new one. There is no purpose no direction - Only very many accidental copy errror (or genetic changes by agent like cosmic rays) the vast majority of which are less adapted, but occasionally one is better adapted. Note that the genes did not adapt - they were selected for the chance produced varriations. No direction, not by God, not by Darwin, not by the enviroment - it is all "purposeless chance." ----------------- *I can not be sure, but suspect that ashes make "pressure" on the combustion process by providing a catalytic surface for the fuel and oxygen to react on. How does adaptation make for more rapid changes in the chemical structure of any gene? :shrug: **As I use the the word "adaptation" the transformation of liquid H2O into ice is not an adaptation to temperature falling to less than zero C. Likewise the reduction of a hill's altitude is not an adaptation to rainfall errosion, etc. Only actions by living organisms are adaptations. If you are using the word adaptation to include natural passive change by non-living chemical compounds, like DNA or genes or wood burning, and passive natural changes to structures, such as ice forming, hill erroding, etc. then that may be the main source of conflict.
