I will answer every question about evolution you have

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Ghost147
Back to the topic though, does the first part of my comment (to which you quoted the second) explain the difference a bit more clearly?

Not really. Well, maybe. Can deevolution be considered evolution as well? See the Great White. It had to get smaller to survive.

Well, its not really referred to as "deevolution". Evolution doesn't require an organism to get bigger, stronger and faster, it simply means that genetic variation through successive generation occurs. What determines which mutations stay in a population is mainly due to Natural Selection.

So if it is more beneficial for an organism to reduce something, or lose something its ancestors had previously attained, then evolution can actually take away, rather than continuously add.

A good example would be color and eyesight. When a species had an ancestor that used to live in a light-filled environment, but had - over time - migrated to an environment that had no light, we see color that tends to fade to a white (or translucent) appearance, and we see what once were functional eyes, disappearing.

Functional traits are kept, and unnecessary and/or prohibitive traits are weeded out or lay dormant.

We shouldn't forget the random factors of evolution, either. Natural selection plays a part, a large part clearly, but we also have things like genetic drift, which occur wholly by chance.

I feel like the religious folks in this thread cannot get over this idea that every evolutionary occurrence occurred for some specific aim or purpose. A byproduct of their beliefs that they are projecting onto the theory, unknowingly (or not). That's just not the case; it's hugely random. All mutations are random, as are cases of genetic drift and most cases of gene flow. Nature just happens to pick out the aberrations that confer some advantage.

And as a stipulation, if it hasn't been said already (I haven't read through this whole mess of a thread): evolutionary "success" is simply reproductive success. There is no quantification of things like speed, size, agility, toughness, what have you. All are merely modes of greater reproductive success.

Also, evolution is not a magical change in genetic code. It's the change in frequency of alleles- rather different than an outright change in genetic code. Presumably, that fact may (in part) account for all our mysterious "junk DNA".

a reply to: Astyanax

You stressing the small increment part does not strengthen your argume t it weakens it.
In some cases - the ones leading to the refinement and diversification of species that I do believe in - yes gradual change is how it occured.
Duh.
But the gradualness is exactly why I cant ONLY believe in just evolution.
A cat mutant has SLIGHTLY different arm muscles that BARELEY let it pull its claws in. Maybe a half centimeter.
This itty bitty bit of retraction provides NO advantage to the original mutant.
Therefore it does not take over the population with its offspring.
Therefore claws that go further and further into the paw dont have a chance to GRADUALLY evolve over many many many generations.
Because the original mutant had no more advantage than the original three eared mutant. (Who would have just a little tiny nub of a third ear of course)

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

It's not suggested that the traits formed simultaneously. The example shows precisely that traits that eventually become mutual and specific can occur gradually from nonobligate associations. The same process occurs when there is even less association.

I did actually manage to find you an article that directly addresses the specific concept you're questioning though (Pollination of flowers through insects)

The title is of the article is Pollination mutualisms by insects before the evolution of flowers:

Excerpt: A preeminent association between flowering plants and insects is pollination. Pollination is a mutualism in which two interactors reciprocally benefit: a host plant receives the service of insect pollination in return for a reward provided for its insect pollinator. Typically, the reward is nectar or pollen, but occasionally the provision can be a mating site, resin for nest construction, floral aroma, or even the attraction of plant-generated heat. Evidence from the fossil record and from the inferred ecological and phylogenetic relationships between flowering plants (angiosperms) and their insect pollinators indicates that these types of associations initially were launched during the Early Cretaceous, 125–90 million years ago. It was from this interval of time that flowering plants experienced their initial radiation, as did major groups of insects, especially Thysanoptera (thrips), Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), and Hymenoptera (sawflies, wasps, ants, and bees). However, until recently, very little was known about more ancient modes of insect pollination, those that predated the appearance of flowering plants or that occurred before angiosperms became dominant in terrestrial ecosystems.

Article Here

Edit: Misquote

a reply to: BOTAL

Selection pressures aren't the only things that effect evolution. Have you heard of the bottleneck and founder effects?

a reply to: Talorc

Yes, a lot of the questions we've seen so far simply stem from an assumed position that evolution describes something that it does not actually describe. It's can be difficult addressing some of them without first explaining the process in more detailed, because the question being proposed doesn't depict Evolution accurately.

It appears as though many of the people who have commented have received information that have helped them get past some of the issue's they've had with Evolution. So I believe the thread is serving its purpose well

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Ghost147

In other words they are the same.

No, they are not the same. One is a product, the other is a process.

When a mutation occurs through successive generations, the process in which it took to become a mutation is Evolution. The mutation itself is an adaptation.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Ghost147
I love you atheists as much as the theists. Both wasting time on something unprovable

Many, if not most of the people who accept Evolution as a valid theory ARE theists. Scientific matters are not an exclusive trait of Atheism.

No, mutations aren't adaptations.... but traits can be.

I feel like you might not know as much about this as you'd have us believe. And I'm not just being a semantic nit-picker here; these words have very specific definitions in biology.

My response to a member who pointed out the same thing addressed this. I had misspoken.

EDIT: I just noticed you edited that comment

a reply to: Talorc

Because you explain basic chemistry to someone who has next to no understanding of it using specific technical terms... Well, it turns out to be misspoken anyway.

Strictly speaking only the advantageous mutations would be considered adaptations, correct?



Do we have any idea where DNA came from?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Talorc

Because you explain basic chemistry to someone who has next to no understanding of it using specific technical terms... Well, it turns out to be misspoken anyway.

Strictly speaking only the advantageous mutations would be considered adaptations, correct?

It's my fault. I thought I was quoting a different person. Also, I misread the post, I think. I thought someone was saying that mutations occur as adaptations, rather than being random.

I apologize, Ghost147. I can always count on myself to come off like a rude jackass.

originally posted by: BOTAL
a reply to: Astyanax

You stressing the small increment part does not strengthen your argume t it weakens it.
In some cases - the ones leading to the refinement and diversification of species that I do believe in - yes gradual change is how it occured.
Duh.
But the gradualness is exactly why I cant ONLY believe in just evolution.
A cat mutant has SLIGHTLY different arm muscles that BARELEY let it pull its claws in. Maybe a half centimeter.
This itty bitty bit of retraction provides NO advantage to the original mutant.
Therefore it does not take over the population with its offspring.
Therefore claws that go further and further into the paw dont have a chance to GRADUALLY evolve over many many many generations.
Because the original mutant had no more advantage than the original three eared mutant. (Who would have just a little tiny nub of a third ear of course)

We actually talked about this subject a bit earlier as well regarding a few different topics (such as the eye, and Sexual Reproduction). But the concern is based off of a false premise. You are assuming that the individual parts that allow for whatever organ it is to function, requires the individual mechanisms to be fully formed.

This is not the case, however. In all adaptations the seem complex, the process in which it came to be how it is in it's modern form is extremely gradual, and the origins of them are extremely primitive. The mechanisms within the primitive forms of them often do not look similar at all to what the modern forms look like.

Take the eye for example. Some of the first signs of eyesight are merely just a cluster of light-sensitive cells. The next step (in which there is a transition in between that is still functional in it's own right) is the development of an indentation with the cells in the middle, this allows the organism to tell the direction light is coming from. The transition from there to the next major difference and the one after that are all still gradual, and the modern results we see today all stemmed from those initial light sensitive cells.

Here's an image that can put it into a visual perspective. Again, keep in mind that the transition from one to the other is gradual, still beneficial, and still able to produce a more complex system without the need for fully-formed organs to spontaneously appear.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Talorc

Yes, a lot of the questions we've seen so far simply stem from an assumed position that evolution describes something that it does not actually describe.

Ok. I never claimed to know it all. Where am I wrong with the following statement:


There is variety within a species. The differentiations that consistently provide advantage will eventually become the norm.

Nature randomly produces mutations on rare occasions. Because it is random these mutations often fail and die out in a few generations. Occasionally the rare mutation provides an advantage. If it does than the new trait will gradually take over the population.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Talorc
Do we have any idea where DNA came from?

DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

originally posted by: BOTAL
Ok. I never claimed to know it all.

It's not meant to come off as an insult, and I wasn't necessarily referring to your comments. It was just a humble observation.

originally posted by: BOTAL
There is variety within a species. The differentiations that consistently provide advantage will eventually become the norm.

Nature randomly produces mutations on rare occasions. Because it is random these mutations often fail and die out in a few generations. Occasionally the rare mutation provides an advantage. If it does than the new trait will gradually take over the population.

So far that's pretty much 100% accurate

a reply to: Ghost147

Sorry for the trouble, if you went through any...but I wasn't referring to pollination...I was actually referring to the cats and retractable claws example given previously.

I just have trouble with things like this...I don't know, maybe there's a disbelief gene...(it's a joke)

I don't understand how things like retractable claws and the associated working parts(the protective sheath and muscles/tendons) could have developed.

I know retractable claws started a long time ago...with the dinosaurs in fact...but how did they begin...they need all 3 parts to work properly...and it doesn't make sense that one would develop without the other because then they wouldn't be providing any "benefit"...so I can only conclude that they developed simultaneously...which is not how evolution supposedly works...

Also...I don't understand why Alaskan Malamutes have retractable claws...Sure...more traction...but what about the other ancient arctic dogs like siberian huskies or greenland sledge dogs...?

And again...the weasel program...
When it takes a computer program roughly 8,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 queries to arrange 28 letters in a useable fashion...
As compared to the roughly estimated 141,912,000,000,000,000 seconds the earth has existed....you can kinda see the problem...

It becomes even more apparent when you consider the computer program is limited to only 28 characters...and actually designed with a goal in mind....and it still takes that damn long...

Whereas evolution has no goal and has a much larger selection to choose from....but a smaller time frame...

Doesn't make sense...sorry

A2D

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Talorc

Because you explain basic chemistry to someone who has next to no understanding of it using specific technical terms... Well, it turns out to be misspoken anyway.

Strictly speaking only the advantageous mutations would be considered adaptations, correct?


Do we have any idea where DNA came from?

Well, I don't personally know how the first DNA formed. I'm sure chemists/biologists that study early life on earth have some idea.
But DNA was almost certainly present from the time of the earliest single-celled bacteria. No DNA = no life as we know it.

a reply to: Ghost147

Interesting graph of the eye...

Any speculation as to how these formations were beneficial or why they were "selected"?

The eye cup...the optic nerve....the cornea...how did these provide any benefit before becoming a "complete" eye...?

A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

I dont know what would come before limpet in your picture chart.
I will call it wimpet because it really doesnt matter to the point I am making.

Once something works and provides benefit and does something
I have ZERO problem accepting that said trait can gradually continue developing over a long period of time into something way more advanced. Fine. No prob at all.
The first of my so called blind wimpets has a mutant member of its society with a limpet eye. The eye provides advantage. The limpet because the new norm. The old blind wimpet loses. Now that eye is a thing eye can gradually upgrade. Makes sense. Like polar bears having white fur. Pretty obvious, straightforward and simple.
Now focus on my POINT not the miniscule details I may have very slightly made an irrelevant mistake with.
IF the nautilus "stage" in your chart was the first time eye helped
And if the nautilus eye couldnt evolve directly from my so called wimpet
(Due to the gradual nature of evolution I was so rudely scolded with a page ago)
Why would the limpet take over the gene pool with its ugly vulnerable body part

originally posted by: UmbraSumus
a reply to: Ghost147
Would you take a stab at explaining transgenerational epigenetic inheritance ?

Sorry about the wait. There were a few other members who were actively discussing a particular concern. I'll answer this now.

Epigenetics basically describes how Environmental/External factors impact how genes are read, without changing the actual DNA sequence. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is when those external/environmental factors impact the eggs/sperm of an organism, thus the offspring of that organism now intrinsically expresses the impact those factors had on gene expression. The interesting thing is that the offspring will now always carry that change and continuously pass it on if they also reproduce. So that gene expression now becomes a permanent shift throughout successive generations.

It's a very effective force in quickly creating an evolutionary event in a particular population.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: BOTAL

Alright, perhaps I can attempt to explain this a different way. Essentially, both of your concerns are identical, in that some formations simply seem too complex to form, and that these complex formations need to occur in a specific order to function properly. The details, such as "why would [insert trait] be advantageous" and be next in line would be subjective to the environment each organism lived in. So what may be the case for one species, may be different for another (evolution isn't linear, after all, it branches out in many different directions). Again, there are infinite/gradual transitional steps between all of the depicted adaptations, but it's all the same process.

Furthermore, if it is advantageous for a particular adaptation to develop further in a particular environment, then natural selection will allow this development. If that same adaptation provides the best option for fitness in that enivornment, it doesn't need to develop any further.

Perhaps this quote from the article "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features" may be able to explain the phenomena more clearly.

A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms -- computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147
All the characters of an organism are subject to natural selection. This includes complex behavioural traits, which take a large amount of energy to acquire and deploy. If they are not selected for, they will most assuredly be selected against. This is as true of extended phenotypic traits like art and religion as it is of simple ones like hair colour or tail length.

Yes, I can agree that you are correct

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147
The correct answer to my question is, of course, 'we don't know.' There are lots of speculative explanations. Richard Dawkins has suggested that faith is the development of the tendency of children to obey their parents, but he, unlike those who take evolution as an article of faith, is well aware that the 'evolutionary by-product' theory isn't powerful enough to explain complex traits like art and religion. So he proposes, additionally, that they are parasitical memes that have evolved to be self-sustaining. It's a pretty weak argument, and as far as I can see, an unfalsifiable one. But then he doesn't present it as fact, merely as speculation.

I would say it may be more appropriate to say 'I don't know'. I'm not personally familiar with any studies that directly focus on the subject, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course, much of what we attempt to explain, especially in reference to behavior, can be highly speculative.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147
There is no harm in admitting that there are some facts of biology (and psychology) that evolutionary theory cannot explain -- for now.

Yes, I agree. I've responded to some comments here already stating so

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147
But we must not forget, either, that facts which don't fit a theory are grounds, ultimately, for rejecting the theory.

I'm not quite sure how this statement fits into the discussion? Has there been a statement that's been made that are grounds for rejecting the Theory of Evolution?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147
And those who make a hobby of evolutionary biology would do well to be a more careful in distinguishing between biological fact and evolutionary speculation.

I don't believe I've claimed that something was fact rather than speculation