Evolution Question

[antagon]

My understanding is that creatures either evolve in response to external influences and/or because of "Random mutations" or that they are designed by a creator.

If that's how things work, then why alligators haven't evolved thumbs or why we haven't evolved, or evolved away from, the patently superior ability to process salt water?

since you ignore answers to questions, perhaps you could answer one yourself. what advantage would thumbs afford an alligator in you opinion? tree climbing? using tools?

what makes you think that a creature living on land would benefit from drinking salt water? you call it patently superior, but it could help that you substantiate that. i think that land animals are better adapted to drinking fresh water for a number of reasons.

you mount evidence that you dont appreciate the factor of time and advantage in evolution. you give the impression that you couldn't spot advantage when you face it.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

You waited a whole 9 minutes before concluding the response was "nothing?"

You still seem to completely lack the basic understanding of evolution. Genetic changes and speciation in no way demand that previous species must become extinct. In the case of your berries, there was an environmental pressure, humans, that brought about boysenberries. There was also an environmental pressure that selected for genes that promoted the other berries. This really shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. The existence of mules don't make horses and donkeys go extinct.

I recommend you actually ask a few genuine questions, instead of these flimsy remarks, in hopes of learning a thing or two on the topic, instead of remaining in your ignorance, assuming you already know it all, and continue to make really stupid comments on the topic.

Aww... (sniffles)

 

[konradv]

Several posters seem to have posited that the correct definition for a 'mutation' is any variant within the genome for a given species. This is not what Darwin had in mind. When I originally introduced the term, I was referring to what most of us think of regarding the term -- a significant feature or features which deviate from the taxonomy of the species, e.g.; a person born with three arms, no fingers on one hand, etc. There does seem to be a gray area here with contemporay thought on this subject, but I think we need to nail down our definitions. This has inspired me to reenter the discussion.

A human being who is susceptible to say, cholera, or any other disease should not be considered a "mutant" any more that a person born with a gene in their DNA sequence which gives them an advantage over such dieases. This is the realm Darwin was speaking in when he discussed the normal variants within a classified species, and which nature tends to either select for survival, or non-survival.

Taken to it's extremes, a notion like the one I just mentioned would mean that there is one single genome type with a 'perfect' sequence, and all others are a mutation of it -- not true. Therefore, if Frank has a hooked-nose, and Carl has more of ball-shaped nose, one or possibly both are a mutation of the perfect specimen.

We do see billions upon billions of variations within given species, and who's to say who the 'mutant' is, and who is not? Clearly, this is not what the term should be taken to mean.

All of this should and does fall into the category of Natural Selection, and while minor variants do help individuals to cope and flourish in ever-changing conditions, we still see no significant changes to the taxonomy of species that come anywhere near to puting them into a new classification.

Of course that wasn't what Darwin had in mind, because the notion of genes hadn't been scientifically formulated at the time he was working. If we haven't seen changes that put species in new classifications, it's because they don't happen in the human life scale of time. We can only deduce this from the fossil record. Given its extensiveness, I see the denial of a pattern of change as intellectual diishonesty, a willful desire not to believe regardless of the evidence.

 

[antagon]

Several posters seem to have posited that the correct definition for a 'mutation' is any variant within the genome for a given species. This is not what Darwin had in mind. When I originally introduced the term, I was referring to what most of us think of regarding the term -- a significant feature or features which deviate from the taxonomy of the species, e.g.; a person born with three arms, no fingers on one hand, etc. There does seem to be a gray area here with contemporay thought on this subject, but I think we need to nail down our definitions. This has inspired me to reenter the discussion.

A human being who is susceptible to say, cholera, or any other disease should not be considered a "mutant" any more that a person born with a gene in their DNA sequence which gives them an advantage over such dieases. This is the realm Darwin was speaking in when he discussed the normal variants within a classified species, and which nature tends to either select for survival, or non-survival.

Taken to it's extremes, a notion like the one I just mentioned would mean that there is one single genome type with a 'perfect' sequence, and all others are a mutation of it -- not true. Therefore, if Frank has a hooked-nose, and Carl has more of ball-shaped nose, one or possibly both are a mutation of the perfect specimen.

We do see billions upon billions of variations within given species, and who's to say who the 'mutant' is, and who is not? Clearly, this is not what the term should be taken to mean.

All of this should and does fall into the category of Natural Selection, and while minor variants do help individuals to cope and flourish in ever-changing conditions, we still see no significant changes to the taxonomy of species that come anywhere near to puting them into a new classification.

a mutation is a change in a genetic sequence affected outside mendelian mechanics (outside sex and meiosis).

there's no regard for a perfect sequence, silly. it is a matter of what the sequence was, and how it has changed in the parent, its gamete or in the offspring that would constitute a mutation or not.

there has been a good bit of hackery on the topic of mutation. this is highschool biology.

ur the one who's bein' a big silly

not sure how this is silly, but ok.

i hope that clears up your misunderstanding about what mutation is, though.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

a mutation is a change in a genetic sequence affected outside mendelian mechanics (outside sex and meiosis).

there's no regard for a perfect sequence, silly. it is a matter of what the sequence was, and how it has changed in the parent, its gamete or in the offspring that would constitute a mutation or not.

there has been a good bit of hackery on the topic of mutation. this is highschool biology.

ur the one who's bein' a big silly

not sure how this is silly, but ok.

i hope that clears up your misunderstanding about what mutation is, though.

Never could have figured it out without your help. Thanks!

Next time you want to make the same point I already did and call me a silly, don't bother changing any of the words.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

C'mon kids... more, more, more!

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Several posters seem to have posited that the correct definition for a 'mutation' is any variant within the genome for a given species. This is not what Darwin had in mind. When I originally introduced the term, I was referring to what most of us think of regarding the term -- a significant feature or features which deviate from the taxonomy of the species, e.g.; a person born with three arms, no fingers on one hand, etc. There does seem to be a gray area here with contemporay thought on this subject, but I think we need to nail down our definitions. This has inspired me to reenter the discussion.

A human being who is susceptible to say, cholera, or any other disease should not be considered a "mutant" any more that a person born with a gene in their DNA sequence which gives them an advantage over such dieases. This is the realm Darwin was speaking in when he discussed the normal variants within a classified species, and which nature tends to either select for survival, or non-survival.

Taken to it's extremes, a notion like the one I just mentioned would mean that there is one single genome type with a 'perfect' sequence, and all others are a mutation of it -- not true. Therefore, if Frank has a hooked-nose, and Carl has more of ball-shaped nose, one or possibly both are a mutation of the perfect specimen.

We do see billions upon billions of variations within given species, and who's to say who the 'mutant' is, and who is not? Clearly, this is not what the term should be taken to mean.

All of this should and does fall into the category of Natural Selection, and while minor variants do help individuals to cope and flourish in ever-changing conditions, we still see no significant changes to the taxonomy of species that come anywhere near to puting them into a new classification.

Of course that wasn't what Darwin had in mind, because the notion of genes hadn't been scientifically formulated at the time he was working. If we haven't seen changes that put species in new classifications, it's because they don't happen in the human life scale of time. We can only deduce this from the fossil record. Given its extensiveness, I see the denial of a pattern of change as intellectual diishonesty, a willful desire not to believe regardless of the evidence.

....Oh.

 

[antagon]

ur the one who's bein' a big silly

not sure how this is silly, but ok.

i hope that clears up your misunderstanding about what mutation is, though.

Never could have figured it out without your help. Thanks!

Next time you want to make the same point I already did and call me a silly, don't bother changing any of the words.

you defined mutation as any significant, taxon differentiating change in a phenotype. that was wrong. i point out that mutation is the change in a genotype at a locus only when it didn't arise from meiosis or sex. this is an entirely different, but accurate definition of mutation.

not all mutations have any effect, whatsoever. i certainly dont believe a single mutation could possibly bring about your definition. what is that based on?
how is it that you believe we've said the same thing?

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

not sure how this is silly, but ok.

i hope that clears up your misunderstanding about what mutation is, though.

Never could have figured it out without your help. Thanks!

Next time you want to make the same point I already did and call me a silly, don't bother changing any of the words.

you defined mutation as any significant, taxon differentiating change in a phenotype. that was wrong. i point out that mutation is the change in a genotype at a locus only when it didn't arise from meiosis or sex. this is an entirely different, but accurate definition of mutation.

not all mutations have any effect, whatsoever. i certainly dont believe a single mutation could possibly bring about your definition. what is that based on?
how is it that you believe we've said the same thing?

You're definition isn't confusing enough. Add more redundant terminolgy to it and then I''ll decide.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You waited a whole 9 minutes before concluding the response was "nothing?"

You still seem to completely lack the basic understanding of evolution. Genetic changes and speciation in no way demand that previous species must become extinct. In the case of your berries, there was an environmental pressure, humans, that brought about boysenberries. There was also an environmental pressure that selected for genes that promoted the other berries. This really shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. The existence of mules don't make horses and donkeys go extinct.

I recommend you actually ask a few genuine questions, instead of these flimsy remarks, in hopes of learning a thing or two on the topic, instead of remaining in your ignorance, assuming you already know it all, and continue to make really stupid comments on the topic.

Aww... (sniffles)

So once again you respond to real answers with..... NOTHING. This seems to be your cycle: say something stupid, get called on it, claim the other person is wrong without actually refuting them or supporting your own ideas, pretend it doesn't affect you while still posting and showing you it does, leave the thread or ignore the topic for a bit, then return and repeat the cycle.

you defined mutation as any significant, taxon differentiating change in a phenotype. that was wrong. i point out that mutation is the change in a genotype at a locus only when it didn't arise from meiosis or sex. this is an entirely different, but accurate definition of mutation.

not all mutations have any effect, whatsoever. i certainly dont believe a single mutation could possibly bring about your definition. what is that based on?
how is it that you believe we've said the same thing?

You're definition isn't confusing enough. Add more redundant terminolgy to it and then I''ll decide.

Actually the communication of his understanding is straight forward and accurate. What part don't you understand? Or perhaps you should answer his question and elaborate what part of your explanation is actually the same as his? No, doing the mature or intelligent thing doesn't seem to be your style.

This is where you claim you don't really care in a post that betrays the words.

 

[antagon]

Never could have figured it out without your help. Thanks!

Next time you want to make the same point I already did and call me a silly, don't bother changing any of the words.

you defined mutation as any significant, taxon differentiating change in a phenotype. that was wrong. i point out that mutation is the change in a genotype at a locus only when it didn't arise from meiosis or sex. this is an entirely different, but accurate definition of mutation.

not all mutations have any effect, whatsoever. i certainly dont believe a single mutation could possibly bring about your definition. what is that based on?
how is it that you believe we've said the same thing?

You're definition isn't confusing enough. Add more redundant terminolgy to it and then I''ll decide.

you want me to use more, smaller words? bear in mind i was just wondering where you got your definition from and how you felt i said the same thing in my post.

you know how you've defined mutation, but for the avoidance of doubt here it is: "a significant feature or features which deviate from the taxonomy of the species." you go on to make it very clear that you have associated mutation with phenotypes, another word for the physical traits of living things, no more 'redundant' than your 'taxonomy'. i've said no, a mutation is nothing of the sort. it's not an arbitrary word where there's any room for confusion. there has been confusion about it though -- clearly from yourself, but also from folks contending that they support evolution theory.

a mutation relates specifically to genes. genes from a parent and a child can differ without mutation. meiosis, where sperms and eggs, called gametes, are made is a process where genes carried but not necessarily exhibited by the parent can be passed on. then when the gametes combine their halves of the total DNA, they can again create different results than the parents phenotypes, even though the genes of the parents are used. this is what i called 'mendelian' because a guy sirnamed mendel came up with the basic theory about how that works, postulating laws about reproduction and heredity.

mutations occur outside the mendelian boundaries. the DNA which is supposed to be assembled in certain sequences from the parents changes to a unique or novel sequence because of a number of reasons. essentially, it is a rare mistake in the way genes are copied. i contended earlier that it is not even the central force behind evolution, despite it certainly playing a role.

i see your definition and the real definition for mutation to be completely different. where have you derived that 3-armed understanding of mutation? what parts of what mutation really is seemed similar to what you contended it to be?

i think that a lot of what makes people confused about evolution is seeded in a misunderstanding of how genetics works. often it seems like it is driven by outlandish ideas about what scientists understand in the first place -- like your perfect sequence genome idea that i thought was silly.