It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is evolution?

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 





You are still trying to trivialize the mutation side of the process. No mutations means no change means no evolution. That is not a misrepresentation.


I don't see how Stereo or anyone else is trivializing mutation, and I don't understand why you would characterize it that way. Random Mutation is vital to evolution, not trivial.

Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution

Without Mutation there is no Evolution. Not trivial, vital.

Without Natural Selection there is no Evolution. Not trivial, vital.

Mutation is random. Natural Selection filters out the 'harmful' mutations from the 'beneficial' (or neutral) mutations. Both are absolutely vital, and neither is trivial.

Because mutation is random, evolution has no end goal of a 'perfect organism'. Because Natural Selection specifically filters out harmful mutations, evolution itself is not random.

If an individual does not have a mutation that allows it successfully reproduce when conditions change its genes are lost to the population. If no individual in the population has the necessary mutation then the population will become extinct in that area.

This has been said over and over and over in this and other threads. It is really quite straight forward. I'm not sure how many different ways it can be said, so it is clear that you are just refusing to acknowledge that you understand the process.

Disagreeing with the process is entirely different from refusing to understand the concepts. Willfully pretending to not understand the concepts of the discussion is just trolling in order to get a rise.

[edit on 5/6/2010 by rnaa]




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



“Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution”

"Without Mutation there is no Evolution. Not trivial, vital."

Okay, let me back up. In regards to mutations, I should have said “taking for granted” rather than “trivializing”.


”Natural Selection filters out the 'harmful' mutations from the 'beneficial' (or neutral) mutation.”

This is the “taking for granted” I’m talking about. Mutations have to be viewed in a statistical context:
-In the first place, they are simply rare due to check and correct enzymes
-They have to occur in gametes which are extremely unlikely to be involved in reproduction
-They are overwhelmingly either neutral or destructive


“..Natural Selection specifically filters out harmful mutations, evolution itself is not random.”

No, NS does not specifically do anything. Mutant organisms that are ill-suited for their environment die. Viable organisms can easily be eliminated as well. The “slight advantage” is a grossly exaggerated theoretical concept. The selection that is taking place is not between normal and improved forms, it is primarily between normal and abnormal ones.**


“you are just refusing to acknowledge that you understand the process.”

I understand it quite well. I just don’t buy it, and for good reason. It is not statistically realistic, and it is not in accordance with what can be empirically observed.

** I should temper this statement by saying that I do easily accept radical adaptations. I just don't think that they occur accidentally on account of DNA replication errors.





[edit on 5-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at here. Hox genes are like main switches that trigger thousands of other genes.

You've made claims about the methods of cell differentiation and here are important control genes that have been around for hundreds of millions of years and are base don a small number of base pairs.

The original issue had to do with the development of specialized cells. The process has been going on for along time as shown by the Hox genes.


The selection that is taking place is not between normal and improved forms, it is primarily between normal and abnormal ones.

Call them normal and abnormal, but this is what leads to survival.


I understand it quite well. I just don’t buy it, and for good reason. It is not statistically realistic, and it is not in accordance with what can be empirically observed.

This is not statistics. This is probability. You call the really bad math on the web page you referenced realistic? I have repeatedly pointed out the nature of the lies. Okay, let's call them unfortunate mistakes. Secondly, the world about us shows that evolution is a fact. Once there were no fish. Now there are fish. Once there were no birds. Now there are birds. Once there were no mammals. Now there are mammals.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I will respond to some of your statements later. But I couldn't help but notice how you avoided mutations altogether. Could you expound on that particular issue?



[edit on 6-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Law of evolution:

Evolution is the process of change in a line of descent over time that results in the appearance of new varieties and species of organisms. Evolution occurs in any self-replicating system in which variation occurs as the result of mutation and selection and differential fitness is a potential result. Thus, over time, all cells and viruses evolve.

Source: Brock Biology of Microorganisms

[edit on 7-6-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


I refer you to rhinoceros' succinct statement.

It's a bit of side issue, but a type of computer solution that has proved rather successful is what is known as genetic algorithms.

Genetic Algorithms - wikipedia

A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search technique used in computing to find exact or approximate solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms are categorized as global search heuristics. Genetic algorithms are a particular class of evolutionary algorithms (EA) that use techniques inspired by evolutionary biology such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.



Genetic algorithms are simple to implement, but their behavior is difficult to understand. In particular it is difficult to understand why these algorithms frequently succeed at generating solutions of high fitness when applied to practical problems.


The general idea of mutation and survival can be applied to other areas of work and it does a good job.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



The original issue had to do with the development of specialized cells. The process has been going on for along time as shown by the Hox genes.

The question remains about how these genes, along with the thousands of others in their domain, could form on a random, trial and error basis. Adding time into the equation does not make accidental assembly any more likely. Some things just do not happen, much less happen countless times.


Call them normal and abnormal, but this is what leads to survival.

Survival is not the issue. The feasibility of incomprehensible complexity developing because of replication errors is what I’m questioning.


You call the really bad math on the web page you referenced realistic?

You’ll have to refresh my memory on the offending web page.


Secondly, the world about us shows that evolution is a fact. Once there were no fish. Now there are fish. Once there were no birds. Now there are birds. Once there were no mammals. Now there are mammals.

This is a very reckless assumption. For evolution to be a viable theory there has to be a reasonable, observable, testable production mechanism. All you have to go along with mutations/selection is canned, imaginary, theoretical explanations that exaggerate the authority of both. None of it is empirical science.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
evolution is a crock of bull# like the fact that a human who i believe has 46 chromosomes and how a chimpanzee has 48 chromosomes tell me how can a monkey turn into a human in the supposed later steps of evolution with what i believe is a 96-97 percent similarity and have a different amount of chromosomes tell me is that possible, what would blood have evolved from if we supposedly came from fungi and how did it become what you guys call a plasma state, surely if we came from fungi they would have something inside these fungi that our blood also contains.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 



Survival is not the issue. The feasibility of incomprehensible complexity developing because of replication errors is what I’m questioning.

Survival is the issue.


This is a very reckless assumption. For evolution to be a viable theory there has to be a reasonable, observable, testable production mechanism. All you have to go along with mutations/selection is canned, imaginary, theoretical explanations that exaggerate the authority of both. None of it is empirical science.

Evolution is a fact as I explained in many simple observations of the form: "once there were no --- and now there are." So there has been change in life on earth. That's a fact. Evolution is an indisputable fact. There are theories to explain this fact. Darwinism, and neo-Darwinism are 2 theories related to each other that explain the fact of evolution. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradoxos
 


The difference in chromosome number is due to the fusing of chromosomes.

Fungi are not in our kingdom. We are animals. Fungi are not animals. They are in their own kingdom.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradoxos
what would blood have evolved from if we supposedly came from fungi

Hi, we and fungi share a common ancestor (like all life on Earth does) but we don't have a direct fungal ancestor. Rest of you ramble is meaningless since you harbour this big misconceptions about our evolutionary history.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



So there has been change in life on earth.

Of course there has. Nobody disputes that. Radical adaptations have taken place in organisms. Polar bears are an excellent example of animal acquiring many extremely specialized adaptations in a brief time, entirely too brief for random mutations to have been the cause.

On the other hand, there are many plant and animal forms that have remained virtually unchanged for supposedly tens, if not hundreds of millions of years.

So there are two anomalous extremes that simply don’t fit into the tidy mutations/selection paradigm.


Evolution is a fact.

And horse hairs turn into snakes.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


Like it or not evolution is a fact. Once no fishes. Once no bird. Once no mammals. Once no land animals. Once no flowering plants. Once no multicellular life. Like it or not evolution is a fact. Making ridiculous remarks such as "horse hairs turn into snakes" is a reference to spontaneous generation is just repeating a mistake made many times in this thread. Instead of addressing the glaring issue that "once there were not --- and now there are" you avoid the problem by burying your head int he sand. Sorry, but evolution is a fact. How we got there is the matter in dispute.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



Making ridiculous remarks such as "horse hairs turn into snakes" is a reference to spontaneous generation is just repeating a mistake made many times in this thread.

No, it was just illustrating that beliefs, assumptions and proclamations don't always hold up under the scrutiny of scientific method.

But you didn't address the rapid adaptation/no evolution extremes that don't fit the ToE paradigm. How do you manage such things? Wouldn't you think that a theory that does not accomodate anomalies is probably wrong?



[edit on 8-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 





But you didn't address the rapid adaptation/no evolution extremes that don't fit the ToE paradigm. How do you manage such things? Wouldn't you think that a theory that does not accomodate anomalies is probably wrong?


An anomaly, by definition, is not accommodated by the corresponding theory as understood at the time the anomaly is recognized. That is why it is an anomaly, if it was accommodated they it wouldn't be an anomaly would it?

Every theory is tested against new data. If it doesn't work for that new data, it is a question that begs to be answered. That is the whole point of science. An anomaly doesn't necessarily mean an entire theory is tossed out, only that part ('sub-theory') that failed to predict the anomaly needs to be amended. At worst the 'sub-theory' maybe replaced entirely with a new sub-theory that explains everything the old one did plus the new bit and fits with the rest of the overarching theory.

The MES is such an 'overarching' theory that has lots of sub-theories, that is why it is called the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Bits are amended all the time, but the overall MES is as solid as it gets. Godel showed that there is no such thing as a (non-trivial) complete theory. There will always be new data to explain.

Rapid Evolution has been addressed by various hypotheses, including Stephen Jay Gould's 'Punftuated Equilibrium'. PE is dependent on lots of neutral mutations accumulating over time until a sudden environmental change suddenly makes some set of those mutations very important. The Natural selection can then transform a population in just a few generations, (and thus there may be no opportunity for fossil deposition). PE is an amendment to the MES, not an overthrow of Darwinism.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

But you didn't address the rapid adaptation/no evolution extremes that don't fit the ToE paradigm. How do you manage such things? Wouldn't you think that a theory that does not accomodate anomalies is probably wrong?

So you think that all creatures must change at the same rate regardless of their form?

Consider the tuatara which appears to be very similar to its ancestors that lived millions of years ago. They are referred to as living fossils. Yet, if you check their biology you'll see that they have one of the highest molecular evolution rates of studied animals.

Even though mutations may be happening all of the time does not mean that the mutations offer an advantage. There may be no preference for survival. These changes may not be expressed in the population and the population appearance remains relatively stable.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



Rapid Evolution has been addressed by various hypotheses, including Stephen Jay Gould's 'Punftuated Equilibrium'.

Yes, PE was an interesting theoretical approach. It was not about addressing or interpreting fossil evidence that supports evolution. It was formulated to contend with the fact that there isn't any, noticing that stasis is what the evidence shows.

The idea that neutral mutations are saved up for a change in the environment is silly. The very fact that they are neutral means that they don't affect the phenotype.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 



It was formulated to contend with the fact that there isn't any, noticing that stasis is what the evidence shows.

Show me evidence. Just because a form is stable does not mean that mutations are not occurring. Look at the so-called living fossil tuatara. It is not stable as you propose. Just because a form appears to be stable does not mean it has not changed. A tree such as the Wollemi pine is relatively unchanged, not unchanged. The tuatara is relatively unchanged, not unchanged.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



“…the tuatara which appears to be very similar to its ancestors that lived millions of years ago. They are referred to as living fossils. Yet, if you check their biology you'll see that they have one of the highest molecular evolution rates of studied animals”

Yes, supposedly 200 million years. That doesn’t really support the idea of mutations/selection being powerful agents of change, now does it?

Meanwhile, this en.wikipedia.org... is believed to have been transformed into blue whales in a lot less than 40 million years. Very impressive. Hanging around the water’s edge waiting for mutations was a good move. How many beneficial mutations would you suppose were involved in that process?




[edit on 9-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 



Yes, supposedly 200 million years. That doesn’t really support the idea of mutations/selection being powerful agents of change, now does it?

I don't see your point here.

Tuatara - wikipedia

However, taxonomic work on Sphenodontia has shown that this group has undergone a variety of changes throughout the Mesozoic, and a recent molecular study showed that their rate of molecular evolution is faster than of any other animal so far examined.


Research says you are wrong.
Fastest Evolving Creature is 'Living Dinosaur'

The tuatara has evolved. It has changed over the time period you specified. It continues to evolve. It may not be changing at a rate you think is powerful, but here is a species that has survived over a long period of time.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join