The part I made bold is YOUR MAIN NONSENSE. Clearly you do not understand much about the CHANCE NATURE of all evolutionary steps or that there is no way to know what characterisics will be advantages in the future. Personally, I strongly suspect that the exceptionally big brained creature that evoluved by many chance mutations that did give it dominance over most other forms of life will prove to be a dead end, not only for it own kind, but for most other life forms on Earth also. I.e. "Mother Nature" and CHANCE probably made a big mistake concentrating so much capability in one creature. - Likely to last less than 1% as long as some of her other smaller brained creatures like fish, cockroaches, etc. - but hell, not even Mother Nature is perfect. Even she can not foretell the future.
OK, this is getting interesting. So, just checking that I understand what you THINK YOU ARE SAYING HERE. The MAIN NONSENSE, is that there is no such thing as purpose? There is no behaviour that we can see anywhere, that is "directed", or which gives "advantage" - NONE of these things exist? Can you cast any light on your post? I seriously doubt it - you appear to be suffering from some kind of misconception about what those words "purpose" and "advantage" mean. You probably don't understand what evolution is, either, how could you, if you don't (and you really don't appear to) understand any of the other words, or what they mean? So do you understand the word "evolution"? Do you understand "biological evolution", or should I give up now?
Life is certainly not purposive? Life is not directed toward advantage? Life is not adaptive? It certainly is all of these things - or at least a biologist/geneticist will tell you that evolution is "purposive", because it results in "advantage". You have read about the theory? You appear to have made a statement that doesn't look like you've based it on more than a knee-jerk. Can you substantiate "it certainly is not"? I certainly think you will have some difficulty in showing that life is not adaptive, nor directed, nor does it "behave", and especially it doesn't behave "with purpose". The problem with trying to show this is that it's patently wrong, for a kick-off. So are you.
I do not distinguish between evolution and Biological evolution, but perhaps I should as one could consider a collection of molecules in a galactic gas cloud as interacting and by the fact that gravity is inverse square law and by the fact that different elements do have different condensation (self adherence) temperatures, solar systems do "evolve." I.e. this environment tends to select some gas planets, some rocky planets some much smaller aggregates which then dynamically inter act (many in the early stages of this evolution colliding with a planet) so that the "evolutionary selection" make most of the "surviving fittest" ones not be planet "orbit crosser." But to come to what most understand by "evolution": Living organisms eventually die, but before doing some REPRODUCE. Most of the time, basically their own kind, but occasionally a "copy error" occurs which makes an organism very like, but not "exactly like," its parent(s) {the "s" needed for sexual reproducers, but they by numbers are rare.} This slightly different individual organism may be viable and slightly advantaged, in the current environment, but that too is very rare. If that rare case does happen by chance, then on average it may have its "defect" (from POV of its parent) slightly more likely to found in later generations. This is only selection, not adaptation. - 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. For "purposeful adaptation" to be even possible, the future must be known. To illustrate what should be the obvious truth of this: Note that occasionally humans are born with very thick hair covering their entire bodies, except for the face.* (I am not exactly sure why, but think we all carry the genetic information to make this full body hair, but for most humans this full body "hair production" is suppressed by some other section of the DNA. I.e. the "ape man" only occurs when that "suppressing section" is damaged.) Would you say that most current humans have "purposeful adapted"? Or were "selected" (for the current climate and sexual preference of mates). If the next ice age is extreme and long lasting and the "ape man" with full body hair becomes dominate, is that "adaptation" Or was the currently rare genetic set "selected for"? Again as the future is unknown - there can be neither "purpose" nor "adaptation." - Only "selection" from the variations that already do exist or happen to be created by chance "copying errors". -------------------------------- *"...this only occurs for 1 out of 10 billion people,[1] 19 people alive today have hypertrichosis ..." -wiki I am sure that the rate is at least 1 in a billion as few mothers would nurse a baby covered with fur / hair. Most, at least in primative societies, would immediatel kill and bury the baby for fear of being accused of having had sex with an ape etc. All societies have a "wearwolf" ledgend - it comes from this infrequent variation of human genes, I think.
Explain how scales, feathers, and hair "came about"...? What's your take on the adaptation of genes to homologous forms? What do you call it, if it isn't adapting (an existing tool to a "new" use)? I'm sorry, but evolution without adaptation is not Evolution. IOW, evolution IS adaptation. Let's see you disagree with that. You're confusing "direction and purpose", with "predicting the future". Of course life is directed (by itself and its programming). Of course there is purpose (life is purposive - it behaves purposefully). Life can't predict how its environment will change, only that it will, certainly change.
I THINK I SEE THE ORIGIN OF YOUR ERROR: Yes adaption is very common - I do it with a sweater when it is cold etc. This adaption has nothing to do with evolution and you are confused to think it does. I could put a dozens sweaters on each hour and my offsprings would not be born with a sweater on. Evolution is not concerned with the adaptations that individual do make dozens of times each day. It concern the the CHANCE changes that happen in the DNA etc which get passed down to the next generation. There is no "direction" of that -it might be caused by a cosmic ray, some chemical molecule etc. not by any adaptive change in the individual's behavior.
"Adaptation has nothing to do with Evolution"? I'd say that's your error, and I'm not at all sure about its origin. So are you going to try to explain the scales-feathers-hair homology, without invoking the idea of something being adapted? Can you offer an explanation of how an individual organism manages to survive, that doesn't invoke the concepts of "directed action", "purpose", and "advantage"? I'd be impressed if you could do it by leaving out just one of those three ideas. This isn't going to fly, sorry. You're the one confusing an idea of adaptation, with Evolution. Lifeforms don't "put a sweater on". Unless that means they express genes. Your adaptation of another organisms genetic output -wool, is evolutionary and it does support the notion that evolution is adaptation. You're an evolved organism, and putting on a sweater is adaptive behaviour--it's the adaptation of something from another lifeform--you got it off some sheep right? Adaptation - due to your superior reasoning and logical abilities, allowed you to "foresee" that having wool would warm you, like it warms a cold sheep, so you adapted it by taking it from the sheep.
One final try for Vkothii: By definition, "evolution" is the changes in genetic information that passes down to later generations. NO BEHAVIOR, reguardless of how adaptive for the individual, modifies the genetic infomation contained in it genes. Thus, adaptive behavoir does not passes down as "evolution." - It can be passed down via education, but that is not evolution. Also very few ideas persist for evolutionary times scales (millions of years). Natural selection, "the agent of evolution," can only chose to favor the genetic changes that have already happend by CHANCE. 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 atack 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 mussles but not his stored genetic information (his genes). ---------------------- ---------------------- Brief reply to your questions: How any complex functional structure actually evolved always is to some extent speculation, but often some of the intermediate stages are observed in fossils. I will not tell how feathers, scales, etc. evolved, but how they did for most of these complex features is well founded, highly plausible, by this sort of data. In the case of the eye, many of the earlier stages are still found in living creatures: The evolution of the eye probably starts with a simple radiation sensitive pit, such as still functional for pit vibers, then slowly in millions of years transforms by many small accidential changes in the genetic information evolves into a much deeper "pit", nearly circular in shape, which forms an image as in the Pin-hole camera.This functional level is still found in the Chambered Nautlus, (Still no lens and open for sea water to fill.) Then a covering transparent skin/film closed that chamber, as still seen in related sea creatures. That film thickend to become a lense. etc. i.e. All stages of probable evolution path to human like eyes are still present in living creatures. (But human do not have the most advanced eyes evolution has produced.) Some fish eyes still have some features humans have lost. - For example, the common gold fish has four different color sensitive retinal cells / detectors, humans probably dropped one as they evolved and now most have only three. Some humans have only two. Perhaps humans are evolving to be a di-chromic creature? The eye has evolved thru different stages more than a dozen times independently. For example, the octopuss has a better retina design than humans in that the retina is the first thing the light falls on, not behind layers of blood vessels and nerves* as in human eye structure. One tiny creature has a single photo-sensitive cell in each eye but it can be moved around within the eye (which can not turn in a socket) to scan the image, pixel-by pixel. - For it, this is a good design as its tiny "brain" has too few cells to do much "parallel processing." ---------------- *There are distinct layers of nerves in the human retina - One of their main jobs is "data compression," by nearly a 100 to 1 factor, as that is about the ratio of retina photo-cells to optic nerve "output" fibers, which carry the compressed data to the brain.
That's it? Evolution is genetic information? Why or how is it "passed down"? Yes it does, behaviour is innate - all organisms "arrive" with a behaviour imprint. Genes which are "fitter" get passed down by those organisms (ancestors) who "made the most" of what they had - they're the ones who adapted best, and gained the most advantage. Reproduction is an advantage, biologically speaking. It doesn't change the individual organism's genes, right, I know that, and so do all the other biologists who understand how it works. However, adaptation does have something to do with Evolution, so you are incorrect in saying that it doesn't. Do you know what adaptation has to do with the process? (you could ask someone who knows about it, or do you want me to tell you?)
I have given up on trying to persuade you with rational argument and facts - you are too well vacinated aginst them, but always try to answer direct questions. You are not a good reader also. I said it was the CHANGE in the genetic information, not the information itsself, that when passed down to later generations, was "evolution." As far has how it is passed down, if you really do not know, perhaps you are too young for me to tell - Ask someone in person to tell you about the "birds and the bees." True. Quite complex behaviors even. (For example, a "Baltimore Oriel" builds a unique hanging nest. If the eggs of some B.O.s are taken to region where they do not exist and the young B.O.s grow up in large aviary with many other bird types that all build conventional nest in forks of tree limbs etc, the B.O.s will build their hanging nest, perfectly still, even thought they never saw one.) Again true, but the reproduction of the existing genetic material is not "evolution." The first pre-human ancesstor 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." again correct - glad you understand that. This is about the 7th time you have asserted this with no agrument, no evidence. etc. Few will believe you even if asserted 70 times without agruement. Yes, I would. Please tell. I illustrated a case of "Natural Selection" above, but forgot to tell all about the "normal" brother who also survived. That normal (not any genetic defect - a regular "nuckle 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 periodicly 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, alegators, fish, etc. have not changed for millions of years. Again,yes, I would like you to tell me how the adaptaion of a set of individuals with no accidental chance changes in the gene pool, evolves into new creatures because of some adaptation even the whole group adopts it. For example, if someone in the group learns a better type of stone to chip into arrow heads, and this adaptation becomes universal knowledge in the group. - how is that adaptation part of evolution? I answered your questions - I only ask this one. Will you try to answer it?
OK, first I assume there's a question (and an answer): the question: what does adaptation have to do with Evolution? the answer: "Nothing, evolution is the chance variation of genetic material" ."Bzzzt!" - no, there's more to it than "random" shifts in genes. The answer is, of course, that varied genes get adapted by the organisms that have them, to purposes other than their "original" use. This explains genetic homology (q.v.). In other words, genes are like a bag of tools. Tools have a specific use, but you can use a particular tool in a different way (you can use a chisel as a screwdriver, and a screwdriver as a chisel, for example, screwdrivers and chisels are homologous). Using a tool differently, is called adaptation. This is how Evolution works: by adapting tools to different uses - the toolkit gets altered by changes that occur because of external influences (ionising radiation, copying errors, etc), and because those organisms that adapt and find advantage get selected for reproduction, thus the "new" tools, or ways to use them (genes) persist. With no genetic changes, there is no adaptation, so no evolution. Can you show me where I've made a mistake with this reasoning?
Please tell what you mean by a "gene getting adapted" - does this refer to some new chemical configuration of the gene? If not, what has that to do with the changes in the gene pool of the next generation, which is what is evolution? I will try to answer your question when you answer mine, already asked. Perhaps you were not clear what my question was? Here it is again: In the example I gave, of some member of the group accidently adapting a differ type of stone or method of chiping it to making making better arrow heads, and even assuming that that behavioral adaption became universal in the group, how does that use of new material or method (an adaptation) cause any change in the gene pool of the next generation? I think that natural selection of totally undirected, accidental changes (copy error or damage to the parent's stored transmitable genetic material) is how the next generation's gene pool change. Natural selection, surviable of the fitest etc. can only select on what changes chance has produced. nothing is directed and no gene is chanced by behavior adaption - using hand a different way etc. To give another example: When I was young all high jumpers went over the bar with torso vertical. Then some guy by name of Frostberg went over with a curved body. - His style was called the "frostberg flip." This was an adaptive invention (new way to use your body) by one individual then became universal, but made no changes in the gene pool. Thus had nothing to do with evolution. Furthermore, no behaviour adaption, including ones which increase reproductive chances of individuals who discover better materials or processes (such as how to make better arrow heads), makes zero evolutionary steps, because that adaptation (behavior change) does not change the gene pool passed down to next generation.
Genes are "tools". You know how to adapt a tool, don't you? Because the adaptation changes the survivability (renders an advantage). If an adaptation is advantageous, then it survives. If it survives, it gets passed on. Human utilisation of materials (something other animals aren't as "good at"), is evolutionary. Or can you explain how it has nothing to do with the evolution of the mammalian brain? What's an "accidental" adaptation? Adaptation is purposeful. If reproductive success changes, that's advantage. Reproduction is advantageous (to genes). The gene pool changes, contrary to what you posted, because reproductive advantage changes. Evolutionary steps are not therefore, "zero". P.S. If you're going to stick with: "Evolution is chance variation in genetic material", then stick with it. But it's only PART of THE STORY. If you're happy with part of the story, ok. But please stop insisting that it's all there is to it. Clearly there's a lot more to it.
In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences special publication from 2005, Sytstematics and the Origin of the Species: an introduction, I find 148 instances of the word adapt, or variants thereof (adaptation, adaptive, etc). In On the Origin of Species I find 155 instances. Without checking out each and every use of the word(s) I do find it suggestive that publications at opposite ends of the timeline of evolutionary theory should find it so convenient, even necessary, to talk of adaptation in a work on evolution. In a more direct fashion, BillyT, you seem to be going against the tide of usage common to biologists, who would speak - as I understand it - of adaptation to an enviroment via the chance mutation of genetic material. Forgive me for being so brusque, but I think you have been sidetracked down this mistaken path by vkothii's rather belligerent style, which seems to conceal some hidden agenda. vkothii, it is best not to patronise people unless you are the smartest person on the planet, and then it is probably unecessary.
Why are you being patronising about this issue? If someone can't see the bleedingly obvious - and I honestly cannot see how use of a tool isn't an obvious metaphor, or even an accurate description of what adaptation is, I tend to get a little antsy, I guess. P.S. I'm only one of the smartest people on the planet. Smart enough to have realised that I'm not the smartest person on the planet. The only agenda I have (which may not be congruent with yours or anyone else's I've discussed this or that with), is presenting what I "know" about stuff. This is nowhere near as easy a thing to do as I first thought. Why do you think Billy T is distracted? Why do you think it's got something to do with me and some agenda? Excuse me while I have a fit of laughing for a sec.
From what I have seen of your efforts, I'd say you were very good at presenting what you DON'T know. Why not regale us with tales from genesis. You should be able to manage that much.
Why can't, or don't you contribute something more meaningful than a whine? Why not use that brain like a tool and adapt it to something helpful. Why do you think telling everyone "Yes I understand Evolution", means we should believe it? I don't. If you understood, you'd be able to contribute something other than petulance and pathetic attempts at nay-saying. Sucked in again huh?
Summarising the, er, stuff discussed so far, or paraphrasing the beliefs some seem to have: "Evolution is random mutation of genetic material. Genetic material (along with the changes due to evolution) gets passed down - this is not evolution it's inheritance. The information is passed down to other information (evolution is the change in this information). What does it get passed down to? Well, to things that hang on to it for a while, before passing it down again, via reproduction. Life is just a caretaker of genetic information. Life has no purpose - but organisms appear to behave with purpose. There is no explanation for this. There is no purpose in the changes to genetic material (evolution). It's all random. Any apparent direction, or goal, has no explanation either, because evolution is random, and life's only purpose is to store genes until it can hand them on. There's no purpose to this though - it's all random." Yeah...
