Evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Feb 20, 2015.

  1. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    No it isn't. Evolution works on variation, so each life form is different from another. Simply dying translates into a shift in the gene pool. And even if a life form's morphology is similar to how it looked in the past, there are all kinds of ways things evolve that you can't readily see, such as having to resist disease and parasites.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    As a compromise, how about the statement that absolute changes in allele frequency/proportion must occur within all populations at nearly all times, significant differentiation between f(a)1 and f(a)n is not demanded by such change?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    There might be some exceptions for life that reproduces asexually.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I see what you mean. You could still have allele frequencies changing if measured the complete organism for inter-generational mutations based on simple DNA replication errors. If you wanted to be an utter bastard about it, that is. =)
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,719
    Untrue. There are a great many organisms that reproduce asexually; each new organism is identical to its parent.
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    Genetic drift.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,719
    Yes, you might get genetic drift - and you might not. In a perfectly adapted organism, anything that sees genetic change in an expressed allele is selected against, and dies off. Again, there is nothing in evolution that says genetic change MUST happen.
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    True - but there will almost always be mutations each generation, even in uncoding DNA. You're both right - no phenotypic modification, but having neutral sequence changes by generation.

     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,732
    Natural selection may still act on groups of genetically similar forms, created by geographic isolation and genetic drift, causing some groups to be wiped out. But this could be a successful strategy if the environment isn't changing very much. And if the time between generations is very short, it may not matter that you aren't using sex to create the variation.In fact, sex may create too much variation for their circumstances.

    My criticism of garbonzo's question was more about the common anti-scientific notion that if life forms have a visual resemblance to ancient forms, it means they haven't evolved. The modern coelacanth, for instance, is very different from the ancient one. You have to go beyond mere appearance to see the evolution sometimes, but it still happens.
     
  13. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,028
    Simple - it's proof that you don't have a fracking clue what Evolution is nor how it works...
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,719
    Definitely. Changes in the environment (new geographic isolation) will drive rapid evolutionary change, as evinced by the cichlids of Victoria lake. The converse is also true - a stable environment will drive slow or zero evolutionary change, especially in asexual organisms.

    Agreed. A species that looks similar to a fossil we found dated 20 million years back is not evidence of "no change." Indeed, many of the more important genetic changes (homeostasis, immune system evolution) leave no skeletal traces.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The reason a changing environment and a routine environment induce different rates of change is the environment sets the potential for the DNA to change. This works similar to the brain. If one moves to a new place, a potential is created to adapt. If you remain long enough, you start to assimilate and narrow your options into a routine. Nature tends to recycle schema with the DNA under similar pressure, conducted from the environment to the DNA.

    Creationism is misunderstood. Creationism is about the rise of modern man, with will power and choice. Human willpower and choice caused artificial selection to appear, along with natural selection. Good examples are domestic dogs and cats. The path of hundred of breeds of dogs and cats are no longer connected to natural selection, but human selection standards defined by cat and dog clubs. Even your favorite tomato plants are based on human selection; both heirloom and modern. Humans will create environments, that narrows selection to very specific human parameters; lab mice.

    Beginning in Genesis, modern man with willpower and choice, caused an artificial selection to appear in nature, that would move parallel to natural selection. Lawns with Kentucky Blue grass is not natural, but artificially selected. Once you form cities, the trees are often planted by man who also selects the type and the exact spot. Genesis is the time=0 of a different clock, that runs parallel to natural selection, and often supersedes it, through choice and consequences.

    These two paths are often confused. Humans are not just objective, but we are also subjective. Subjectivity adds a randomizer wild card, that can defy natural logic.The style of many dog breeds is not always based on the natural logic of nature; survival. The choice of a dog is often subjective/randomized to style, tastes and fads. This parallel path may be the unconscious basis for the random assumption behind modern evolutionary theory.

    Say you were Noah and had to pick two of each animal. Could you pick the same as natural selection? We don't know until after the fact. Would you pick pretty, large, friendly, colorful, or would you have the time to watch each species, to make an educated choice, with only a few month available to pick all; artificial selection.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2015
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,064
    The theoretical mechanism of Darwinian evolution will act homeostatically, preserving rather than changing a given reproductive pool and its physical expression (over time and stable cycles), in many common circumstances.

    So Darwinian theory does not require that any given organism evolve, but instead explains the otherwise puzzling stability and persistence of many kinds of organisms - the existence of "species" and their continued existence over many thousands or even millions of years.

    Not just the Origin of the Species, in other words, but also the Continuation of the Species, is handled by that profound theory.
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Darwin's theory was a rational theory, creating a cause and effect; homeostasis. By the beginning of the 20th century, a random theory of the universe, appears, originating in Physics; Relativity and Uncertainty. All of science then tries to integrate this fad with the new POV toward life, changing to accommodate random; evolution as random change with no sense of direction in terms of flow toward higher animals.

    If you accept a random universe how can you accept Darwin's classic casual explanation ? If you assume Darwin's homeostatic, the random theory implies this breaks down. This has confused me because these are saying two different things yet pitched as consistent with each other.

    If you look at protein in water, the water induces protein to fold, with exact folds, with probably equal to 1.0. The universe of life is not random down to this protein nano-scale. This was not expected from the random POV and is still ignored because the theory is dogma. Life minimizes random. Neither the protein fold and Darwin homeostasis, are consistent with a random universe theory. Yet when we study life, we use casino math, the underlying assumption of which, is the universe is random.

    Today coffee is good for you and tomorrow coffee is bad for you. Darwin never implies this crap shoot universe, where species can change year to year, to environments impacts, sometimes 180 degree out of phase.
     
  18. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    It's not confusing, wellwisher, it's part of THE LIBERAL AGENDA!!!!!
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    It is not confusing, it is conceptually flawed. This flaw may be connected to the impact of religion in science; atheism. Atheism adds its own type of bias. Science should be neutral and not part of a philosophy debate. But it is, with this debate perpetuating a conceptual flaw and inconsistency.

    Darwin's theory was part of the late stages of the Age of Reason, providing a logical explanation for species. He was accepted by Atheism because his theory opposed religion, via its natural POV compared to the divine POV. Atheism is sort of a mirror philosophy, defining itself in a mirror with religion, with Darwin's natural view opposite that of religion.

    In the early 20th century, physics came up with the random universe POV due to relativity and uncertainty. Since physics is the foundation of science, life science integrated this; statistical universe with mutations. This POV was also accepted by atheism, because religion is about order via God; divine plan, with chaos, random and relative, in the mirror.

    The conceptual problem this created, is Darwin's model was not about random, since he had a casual approach from the age of reason; pre-random universe. Darwin's approach was now on the opposite side off the mirror, with the new atheism, because the approach had more in common with the ordered theory of religion, than random atheism.

    Darwin now had one leg on each side of the mirror, since he lived at a time, science was just stepping out to the other side of the mirror. The observations of perfect protein folding is consistent with Darwin; natural selection based on water, but it opposes statistical biology, that still assumes average folds. This error lingers due to the atheist mirror.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2015
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Huh??? The most recent polls tell us that something like 75% of American scientists believe in God.
     
  21. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Do they specify which God?
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,598
    Is 300 million years a more realistic number? I've heard the number used in reference to parts of order Hymenoptera, but that would only point back to your prior paragraph. To wit, the claim is that "bees" haven't evolved for some ridiculous period, which I believe has been claimed 300m years, which in turn would be the mystery of what's going on right now with the honeybees. They haven't had to adapt so severely as to evolve for a long, long time; and now some circumstance demands they do. The phrase severely disruptive comes to mind.
     
  23. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,585
    Fraggle rocker : From your Post #277
    75% seems high to me. Do you have a link?
     

Share This Page