How We Are Evolving

[JBeukema]

That is technically true. However, if populations differentiate enough that they evolve separately they will speciate.

Or they can evolve into different ecotypes of the same species, even ring species


That's twice in a row now. You should just quit.

I am not a biologist, something I make quite clear throughout this thread. That said, how does the existence of ring species prove me wrong?

Two different ecotypes have evolved differently but have not speciated.

Consider the Negroid, the Caucasoid, and the Mongoloid types within our own species.

 

[JBeukema]

selection has 'unnatural' contributors. some animals have value systems which prefer certain traits over others or rituals which throw fitness contests which nature has not provided in the environment. this is intelligence.

initself, this is an evolved component of animal behavior which lends to stronger populations and guides genetic drift toward ostensible fitness.

I agree. Humans are a prime example of this. Nonetheless, unless a conscious effort is made to eliminate randomness evolution will remain random.

i believe there are these efforts. their consciousness is moot, however. two beetles wrestling for a mate might not be a conscious endeavor, however, it lends to the determination of evolution for specific traits. the vibrancy of colors on tropical birds is recognized by these species and has developed over time as a hallmark of fitness, despite there not being any environmental characteristics which favor a brightly colored bird. how conscious might that be?

i feel the part of evolution which is most random is mutation. even this is impacted by many factors which draw back to the wider theme of evolution. various conditions may increase the chance for mutations, and even these could be behavioral. the propensity to mutate varies, and other evolution mechanisms indicate that it may play a role in determining this.

when factoring epigenetics into the mix, the 'random' modifier is further blurred.

there's a case to be made that true randomness within the universe is impossible to begin when it comes to anything above of the quantum level.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It is obvious that you are deliberately arguing points I am not making in an attempt to make me look foolish.

Points you're not making? You mean like the example you gave about putting coins through a physical filter and looking at an unrelated outcome? Or you mean the poor understanding of gene frequencies that you yourself admitted was based on incorrect assumptions? Or the fact that you've cited no sources to support your points? Or that you are trying to coerce terms such as "intelligent, conscious, and natural" onto a biological environment without being able to define them? Or maybe you're referring to the multiple times you've made straw man arguments, stating I believe math doesn't apply to biology? Which points did I respond to that you're not making, exactly? Oh that's right, you don't answer questions with specific evidence or definitions.

You're very good at making broad sweeping vague statements without being able to specifically support anything you say, the above quote notwithstanding. You say that if you're wrong, I should be able to easily disprove it. Well if you're RIGHT, you should be able to easily PROVE your own claim.

Go run off and hide under your blanket of ignorance and enjoy.

You start your post with "I give up" and then claim I'M the one hiding?

The sad thing is that biologists are now stuck in a position of denying science to promote it. Kinda weird, even if it makes sense to a degree.

Ah, more generalized assumptions that are completely unsupported. Awesome.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I give up.

OK ok, let's go over the answer. I'll show you how there can be resolution between our two stances. The key here you needed to argue was the definitions of start and end points. The examples that I used specifically manipulated these two points, starting with a population, and making my end point all subsets of that population that are able to survive a filter. My end point ensures that 100% of the resulting subset survives, based on the definition of the filter, in a self-fulfilling manner. You were very close when you used the word "constrained", because that's how the examples were setup.

Contrast that to analyzing the PATH, and not the end result, in ways to get through the filter. Such an example would show that random mutations can take a number of random paths to get through. An example to support your idea would be placing a "filter" on answers to a simple math equation, only allowing for answers that total 10. A myriad of random combinations could achieve that: 5+5, 14-4, 100/10, etc etc. So even if the numbers are randomly generated, and the sign is randomly generated, a ton of random equations can be generated that pass the filter.

So you see you WERE partially right, if you adjust your start and end points. The problem in your reasoning, though, really does come back to application of the math. In the case of evolution, you didn't understand that the outcomes of one filter are the reactants for the next, completely reducing the "random" aspect of how it got there in the first place: it doesn't matter. In other words, all the randomly generated equations that achieve an outcome of 10 don't matter once that 10 goes on to be used in a subsequent equation. You were busy looking at the reactants that made it through the filter, and claiming they are random, which they appear to be. But the real focus should have been the products, which are all exactly the same.

That's essentially how evolution works. It randomly generates solutions to an environmental challenge in a directed and constrained manner. While it's easy to claim the examples and filters I'm using are self-fulfilling non-random endpoints based on an intelligent/unnatural/conscious construct, the fact remains that natural selection ALSO produces self-fulfilling non-random endpoints without having anything to do with terms such as intelligence, naturalness, or consciousness. That's why evolution only helps and never hurts survival/reproduction in a given environment, whereas mutation alone can create any outcome. In the simplest example, antibiotic resistance, the "constraints" are black and white. In most settings however, they are not so tightly bound, but they are constraints nonetheless.

At that point, we get into a philosophical discussion of what technically defines "randomness". It's funny that the one link you did provide, a wikipedia article on that word, starts with the following line:

Randomness has somewhat disparate meanings as used in several different fields.

which brings me back to my original point: while math is universal, not all terms can be applied across all fields equally.

You're pretty smart. You just need to lose to tude until you understand the underlying concepts instead of just spitting back the words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

selection has 'unnatural' contributors. some animals have value systems which prefer certain traits over others or rituals which throw fitness contests which nature has not provided in the environment. this is intelligence.

initself, this is an evolved component of animal behavior which lends to stronger populations and guides genetic drift toward ostensible fitness.

I agree. Humans are a prime example of this. Nonetheless, unless a conscious effort is made to eliminate randomness evolution will remain random.

i believe there are these efforts. their consciousness is moot, however. two beetles wrestling for a mate might not be a conscious endeavor, however, it lends to the determination of evolution for specific traits. the vibrancy of colors on tropical birds is recognized by these species and has developed over time as a hallmark of fitness, despite there not being any environmental characteristics which favor a brightly colored bird. how conscious might that be?

i feel the part of evolution which is most random is mutation. even this is impacted by many factors which draw back to the wider theme of evolution. various conditions may increase the chance for mutations, and even these could be behavioral. the propensity to mutate varies, and other evolution mechanisms indicate that it may play a role in determining this.

when factoring epigenetics into the mix, the 'random' modifier is further blurred.

I agree. We do not currently understand anywhere near enough about all the factors to fully determine exactly what the constraints are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or they can evolve into different ecotypes of the same species, even ring species


That's twice in a row now. You should just quit.

I am not a biologist, something I make quite clear throughout this thread. That said, how does the existence of ring species prove me wrong?

Two different ecotypes have evolved differently but have not speciated.

Consider the Negroid, the Caucasoid, and the Mongoloid types within our own species.

Ring species have not yet speciated.

As for humans, you will first have to convince me that the splitting of us into races based solely on skin color is valid before you can argue that these are, or are not, separate evolutionary tracks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is obvious that you are deliberately arguing points I am not making in an attempt to make me look foolish.

Points you're not making? You mean like the example you gave about putting coins through a physical filter and looking at an unrelated outcome? Or you mean the poor understanding of gene frequencies that you yourself admitted was based on incorrect assumptions? Or the fact that you've cited no sources to support your points? Or that you are trying to coerce terms such as "intelligent, conscious, and natural" onto a biological environment without being able to define them? Or maybe you're referring to the multiple times you've made straw man arguments, stating I believe math doesn't apply to biology? Which points did I respond to that you're not making, exactly? Oh that's right, you don't answer questions with specific evidence or definitions.

You're very good at making broad sweeping vague statements without being able to specifically support anything you say, the above quote notwithstanding. You say that if you're wrong, I should be able to easily disprove it. Well if you're RIGHT, you should be able to easily PROVE your own claim.

Go run off and hide under your blanket of ignorance and enjoy.

You start your post with "I give up" and then claim I'M the one hiding?

The sad thing is that biologists are now stuck in a position of denying science to promote it. Kinda weird, even if it makes sense to a degree.

Ah, more generalized assumptions that are completely unsupported. Awesome.

Natural selection is not a filter, it is a result.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK ok, let's go over the answer. I'll show you how there can be resolution between our two stances. The key here you needed to argue was the definitions of start and end points. The examples that I used specifically manipulated these two points, starting with a population, and making my end point all subsets of that population that are able to survive a filter. My end point ensures that 100% of the resulting subset survives, based on the definition of the filter, in a self-fulfilling manner. You were very close when you used the word "constrained", because that's how the examples were setup.

Contrast that to analyzing the PATH, and not the end result, in ways to get through the filter. Such an example would show that random mutations can take a number of random paths to get through. An example to support your idea would be placing a "filter" on answers to a simple math equation, only allowing for answers that total 10. A myriad of random combinations could achieve that: 5+5, 14-4, 100/10, etc etc. So even if the numbers are randomly generated, and the sign is randomly generated, a ton of random equations can be generated that pass the filter.

So you see you WERE partially right, if you adjust your start and end points. The problem in your reasoning, though, really does come back to application of the math. In the case of evolution, you didn't understand that the outcomes of one filter are the reactants for the next, completely educing the "random" aspect of how it got there in the first place: it doesn't matter. In other words, all the randomly generated equations that achieve an outcome of 10 don't matter once that 10 goes on to be used in a subsequent equation. You were busy looking at the reactants that made it through the filter, and claiming they are random, which they appear to be. But the real focus should have been the products, which are all exactly the same.

That's essentially how evolution works. It randomly generates solutions to an environmental challenge in a directed and constrained manner. While it's easy to claim the examples and filters I'm using are self-fulfilling non-random endpoints based on an intelligent/unnatural/conscious construct, the fact remains that natural selection ALSO produces self-fulfilling non-random endpoints without having anything to do with terms such as intelligence, naturalness, or consciousness. That's why evolution only helps and never hurts survival/reproduction in a given environment, whereas mutation alone can create any outcome. In the simplest example, antibiotic resistance, the "constraints" are black and white. In most settings however, they are not so tightly bound, but they are constraints nonetheless.

At that point, we get into a philosophical discussion of what technically defines "randomness". It's funny that the one link you did provide, a wikipedia article on that word, starts with the following line:

Randomness has somewhat disparate meanings as used in several different fields.

which brings me back to my original point: while math is universal, not all terms can be applied across all fields equally.

You're pretty smart. You just need to lose to tude until you understand the underlying concepts instead of just spitting back the words.

Here is the problem as I see it.

You are looking at the result, and claiming that is a filter. If we pace a filter in the equation, which is possible in mathematics, than will change the results, but it will not change any other part of the equation. That is why I say that randomness cannot be removed from the result of an equation simply by filtering, because the filter is actually part of the equation.

If we were to write an equation that described evolution we would have to include a lot of factors, and I have no idea how many so please do not try to get me to attempt to define them. We both agree that mutations themselves are random, and I think we both agree that a lot of the environmental factors are random.

We also agree that there are various factors that filter the results. Where we digress is understanding how those filters work. You believe that they take the results of the equation and choose among them. Hence your examples of the different ways to get a particular answer, like 10.

That is not how they work. The filters are actually part of the equation/ A good example of this are formulas to generate psudo-random numbers. All those formulas return a result between 0 and 1 when unfiltered, but the simple application of a filter can change the range of results to fall between desired extremes.

You are arguing that natural selection filters the results of the equation, and selects for a specific result. In order for natural selection to work as a filter it has to be part of the equation, and constrain the range of the possible results.

Note: I believe that, as popularly used, natural selection is actually the result, not a filter that is part of the equation. This is actually what you are arguing, as far as I can see. The result of evolution through natural selection is nothing more what survives. It is not a selection for the stongest, or fastest, or even the smartest (though all of those factors contribute.) Ultimately, it comes down to the luckiest, which explains why we are around instead of highly intelligent relatives of the dinosaurs. That meteor strike killed them, and our ancestors survived.

If we take a large enough sample of any random event it will eventually be susceptible to statistical analysis. This often leads people to think that because these events are predictable, they are not random. thinking like this keeps places like Las Vegas and Atlantic city in business. People think that just because a quarter has come up heads 10 times in a row that it is more likely to come up tails on the next flip. The reality is that the coin has the exact same chance of coming up heads as it does tails, but it will average out in the long run.

There is plenty of evidence piling up that evolution is more constrained than we first believed, and some are even arguing that if we reset the evolutionary clock we would end up with the same result. Personally, I think that what is happening is that we are discovering that DNA is not as flexible as we thought it was.

The randomness of evolution is constrained by a number of different factors, including the fact that a chicken cannot lay an egg that will hatch an eagle. (Theoretically possible through intervention by man, but you know what I mean.) Natural selection, properly applied, can filter those results, but it cannot select for a specific result.

Let me see if I can explain this using rolls of dice. The possible results from rolling two dice vary from 2 to 12. If we arbitrarily define survival from that rang as being 4 or above, and then further reject results below 7 at the rate of 75% for 4, 50% for 5, and 25% for 6 we will have a different weighting for those numbers than we would if we did not do this, but the results will still be both random, and statistically predictable. (I could take the time to work out the numbers, but as I am pulling this example out of thin air I prefer not to.)

This is how natural selection works in reality, it weighs the results so that they favor not just survival, but a general, and slow, improvement in the results. It does not select specific results, it works to weigh the odds in favor instead of against. That is why I understand that evolution is random, and also have no problem with it selecting improvements.

I also understand that evolution is just as likely to deselect those improvements if conditions vary enough. I used to think that fish in caves de-evolved eyes and went backwards on the evolutionary scale. I now understand that evolution does not work that way, and that those fish actually evolved so that they no longer need eyes to navigate their environment. Yet fish deep in the ocean, who also never see light, have evolved ways of generating their own light to see by.

Both of these are quite normal, for evolution. I have a personal preference for sight, but those blind fish do not need it.

 

[JBeukema]

Ring species have not yet speciated.

You deny that they've evolved seperately?

And yes, they have, if they live on opposite sides of the ring or opposite ends of the mountain range.

In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed.

'too distantly related to interbreed' is what defines a speciation event.

Speciation isn't as neat as you seem to think.

As for humans, you will first have to convince me that the splitting of us into races based solely on skin color is valid

Who said anything about 'the splitting of us into races based solely on skin color'? Oh yeah, only you did. But strawmen are all you ever have.

before you can argue that these are, or are not, separate evolutionary tracks.

There's no argument to be had. Whenever two populations develop (evolve) along different paths, they are on different evolutionary paths.

Moron.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You deny that they've evolved seperately?

And yes, they have, if they live on opposite sides of the ring or opposite ends of the mountain range.

In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed.

'too distantly related to interbreed' is what defines a speciation event.

Speciation isn't as neat as you seem to think.

I don't think speciation is neat.

The truth is that I used to think the ability to interbreed defined species, but that is not how biologists define them. I learned this when I had a rather long debate about the fundamentals of what qualifies as a speciation event, and we both came to the conclusion that biologists need to get their act together before anyone can actually debate when speciation occurs.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not the one that is attempting to simplify the definition here, you are.

You need to get over with your pathetic need to prove me wrong and get all your facts lined up before you enter a debate. Maybe of you did you would see that nothing you posted has yet proved me wrong.

Who said anything about 'the splitting of us into races based solely on skin color'? Oh yeah, only you did. But strawmen are all you ever have.

What are your parameters then? That is the usual one used by people who think eugenics is a valid science. Are you now willing to admit that eugenics is total bunk and actually discuss this on some sort of rational basis?

There's no argument to be had. Whenever two populations develop (evolve) along different paths, they are on different evolutionary paths.

Moron.

The general separation of populations does not apply to humans, as it can be conclusively demonstrated that even the most isolated population of humans have not evolved far enough to speciate. That is generally because any small population that does not interbreed with neighbors will die off because the lack of genetic diversity will kill them off, and larger populations are not isolated. There is regular interbreeding among the various races, so no one has an isolated population that approaches anything like an evolutionary change.

I am simply forcing you to define terms if you want to discuss something.

 

[antagon]

skeptics often use speciation as some kind of line, ignorant to the ambiguity of it and taxonomy altogether. it isn't significant to anything because it is just an organization tool. evolution is fundamentally about the mechanics and implications of change, no matter how it's organized.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

skeptics often use speciation as some kind of line, ignorant to the ambiguity of it and taxonomy altogether. it isn't significant to anything because it is just an organization tool. evolution is fundamentally about the mechanics and implications of change, no matter how it's organized.

We weren't actually arguing about evolution itself, as we both believe it exists, just something about populations of fruit flies. It seems that mating behaviour can change enough it a few generations that one population would no longer interbreed with the other, even though they were able to do so genetically. I thought the fact that they could breed proved they were the same species, and he thought that the thought that they do not proved they aren't.

In the end we both realized that neither of us had enough solid ground to stand on, but only because someone else finally stepped in and pointed out that neither of us was using the term species properly. If the experts ever figure out what the terms actually mean, and explain it in a way I can understand, I will again be willing to take a stand on the issue and defend it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If we pace a filter in the equation, which is possible in mathematics, than will change the results, but it will not change any other part of the equation.

Which is why I keep trying to point out you are focusing on different things. You only see the other parts of the equation don't change. I'm ONLY looking at the results, which are changed and constrained. They are what's important, even if the equation is recursive.

We also agree that there are various factors that filter the results. Where we digress is understanding how those filters work. You believe that they take the results of the equation and choose among them. Hence your examples of the different ways to get a particular answer, like 10.

That is not how they work.

Actually that's exactly how they work: all the results of random mutation are "put to the test", so to speak. The environment "chooses" among the various results of the results of mutagenesis. Or, using synonyms for the words you just used, "nature selects" among the results, thus the term "natural selection". This is an order of operations issue.

If we take a large enough sample of any random event it will eventually be susceptible to statistical analysis. This often leads people to think that because these events are predictable, they are not random. thinking like this keeps places like Las Vegas and Atlantic city in business. People think that just because a quarter has come up heads 10 times in a row that it is more likely to come up tails on the next flip. The reality is that the coin has the exact same chance of coming up heads as it does tails, but it will average out in the long run.

And if it doesn't? Again, this comes back to perspective. Rolling a die can yield one of 6 results in a random manner. What if that same die comes up split equally between 3 or 4 every time? Is it "random"? Well, probably with respect to 3s and 4s, but certainly not with respect to the 1 to 6 context expected from dice.

So you say coin flips will average out in the long. What if it's still heads 10 flips later? Is the coin still producing random results? Still heads 100 flips later? One million? At what point do we say "hmm, maybe these aren't random results after all"? I'm sure you're well aware of the equations that examine that VERY question, and in fact we can set limits based on what we wish to determine as statistical randomness with respect to n and limits, and what we want to reject as random.

In biology, p values are generally set at 5%. Below that point, we claim statistically significant outcomes.

I recommend you read this, specifically noting the very first line on the page.

 

[JBeukema]

You think race=skin colour and that preimplantation diagnosis, and recombinant DNA are 'total bunk' and you turn around and say I need to get my facts together?

The general separation of populations does not apply to humans

Which is why separate populations never diverged in genotype or resulting genotype

as it can be conclusively demonstrated that even the most isolated population of humans have not evolved far enough to speciate.

Who said they did? Now you're going from skin colour=race to race=species.

Forget which SN you signed into, Tank?

That is generally because any small population that does not interbreed with neighbors will die off because the lack of genetic diversity will kill them off

Define: 'small population'.

Ever heard of endemic species?

Not to mention that not all lifeforms even interbreed with neighbors or at all.

Once again, you show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[JBeukema]

A coin does not have the same odds of landing heads as tales. There is little if any randomness involved at all. The way it ends up is a result of its initial position/orientation and the various forces that act upon it (the force exerted by your thumb and that by gravity, primarily).

Similarly, the possible mutations within a genome are limited by the processes, forces, radiation, and other factors acting upon it.

There's a case to be made that, at least outside of quantum-level events, there is no such thing as true randomness in the real world. All there is is the pseudo-randomness present in a highly complex non-linear system.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

yeah, that's one of the paths of randomness philosophy I stay far away from

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think race=skin colour and that preimplantation diagnosis, and recombinant DNA are 'total bunk' and you turn around and say I need to get my facts together?

I think nothing of the kind, I just insist you clarify your position.

Which is why separate populations never diverged in genotype or resulting genotype

You just throwing around big words you do not understand again?

Who said they did? Now you're going from skin colour=race to race=species.

Forget which SN you signed into, Tank?

Why is my insistence that you make sense make me a racist?

Define: 'small population'.

Ever heard of endemic species?

Not to mention that not all lifeforms even interbreed with neighbors or at all.

Once again, you show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

We are specifically talking about humans here. Are you attempting to change the parameters again because you know you posted yourself into a corner?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A coin does not have the same odds of landing heads as tales. There is little if any randomness involved at all. The way it ends up is a result of its initial position/orientation and the various forces that act upon it (the force exerted by your thumb and that by gravity, primarily).

Similarly, the possible mutations within a genome are limited by the processes, forces, radiation, and other factors acting upon it.

There's a case to be made that, at least outside of quantum-level events, there is no such thing as true randomness in the real world. All there is is the pseudo-randomness present in a highly complex non-linear system.

A case can be made that God exists. What can be proven is an entirely different matter.

 

[rdean]

Well Frank, try thinking with your larger head.

Most mutations are not beneficial. However, given a large population, there will be a few that are. Sometimes, not even noticably beneficial, because the environement in which they increase the organisms survival chances is not the present one.

The mutatations can come about from many factors other than radiation. And lose the SciFi Movie mentality. Most mutations are very subtle, involving the way proteans work. Over long lengths of time, they do produce a differant specie, one that looks differant, and cannot breed with the parent specie.

If you really want to learn how evolution works, read Earnst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.

Alligators haven't evolved in over 300 million years, but man evolved in less than 3,000 years? You sure you have a solid grasp on this mutation business?

How many alligators "ski"?

 

[rdean]

A coin does not have the same odds of landing heads as tales. There is little if any randomness involved at all. The way it ends up is a result of its initial position/orientation and the various forces that act upon it (the force exerted by your thumb and that by gravity, primarily).

Similarly, the possible mutations within a genome are limited by the processes, forces, radiation, and other factors acting upon it.

There's a case to be made that, at least outside of quantum-level events, there is no such thing as true randomness in the real world. All there is is the pseudo-randomness present in a highly complex non-linear system.

A case can be made that God exists. What can be proven is an entirely different matter.

A case for God is as simple as making a case that the center of the moon is made of soft gooey cheese.

For those without mystical or occult beliefs, the likelihood of either are both equal. To an atheist, supernatural beliefs are just "made up". Bible stories are as likely as "Marvel Comics" and no one takes those seriously. Marvel Comics I mean.

It's not an insult, it's just way one feels who simply doesn't have the ability to believe in "nothing" except bizarre and unbelievable fables.

When someone tells me a religious fable, my only reaction is, "You're not serious, you don't really believe in Noah's Ark and Samson? Not really?"

And when they say they do, I'm always so surprised.