Evolution Question

[JBeukema]

Two additional problems are that, 1) mutations never seem to be something that's beneficial for the organism

Like albification increasing vitamin d production? Or being able to exploit a new food source (see: nylonase)? Or being faster than your predator or blending into a tree trunk? Or being able to run down a gazelle?

2) there's never been a recorded case of a mutation being passed on from one generation to the next

*looks at own skin and compares to parents*

You mean like genetic diseases, red hair, or the various breeds of hounds?

I get the distinct impression you haven't the slightest clue what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution

What's the difference? How is it you understand mutations exist but doubt that it is part of evolution? There is no mystery here. We know exactly how mutations occur, and thus how bacteria and viruses change.

As time went on the animals that were larger survived better than those that stayed small. After a few millenia horses were much larger

I thought they got larger because they would eat like a horse. No?

What I don't see though is any evidence where one species takes on traits which are foreign to it. The fossil record seems to show

Fossil records are the tip of the iceberg. Genetics show that the "jumps" are comprised of little changes over time.

Two additional problems are that, 1) mutations never seem to be something that's beneficial for the organism, and 2) there's never been a recorded case of a mutation being passed on from one generation to the next, and therefor carried on (N.S. not being considered a mutation, but a normal variant).

False and false. Mutations are OFTEN times not beneficial to the organism, and many are incompatible with life. They get weeded out. The ones that ARE beneficial, however, are the ones that stick and get passed on. It's foolish to claim we have never recorded mutations being passed on. I can go into any given biology lab in this country, take a bacteria sample, and kill half of it with antibiotics. I can then take the other half, microwave it on low for 30 seconds, and then grow some colonies on the SAME antibiotic. Why? Because I just induced mutations which can otherwise naturally happen with time, and the visibly growing colony is proof that the beneficial mutation is being passed on to subsequent generations.

 

[antagon]

But you'll admit that if evolution or Intelligent Designed worked as advertised, then we would be have evolved or developed the ability to safely process salt water for drinking.

What a HUGE design flaw!

this is so hilarious, frank. what makes you feel drinking saltwater is crucial to the survival of any creature not living in the ocean? if you could appreciate that saltwater and freshwater hydration are mutually exclusive for the most part, why would you believe lions, tigers, bears and humans should drink saltwater? dont you think it would be an even bigger flaw if we all had to huddle around the coast drinking seawater?

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Two additional problems are that, 1) mutations never seem to be something that's beneficial for the organism

Like albification increasing vitamin d production? Or being able to exploit a new food source (see: nylonase)? Or being faster than your predator or blending into a tree trunk? Or being able to run down a gazelle?

2) there's never been a recorded case of a mutation being passed on from one generation to the next

*looks at own skin and compares to parents*

You mean like genetic diseases, red hair, or the various breeds of hounds?

I get the distinct impression you haven't the slightest clue what the fuck you're talking about.

Playing a little rough tonight, eh JBeukema?

I guess I'll waste time with you once anyway; It's you who doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about. What you're describing is not a mutation. The increase of melanin in the skin is a naturally occuring factor in a healthy human being. Some, like black people, have the genetic trait of having large amounts of it which is passed down by birth -- without the need for sun exposure.

Second quote; same answer. Susceptiblilty to certain diseases are simple genetic factors which are ofter hereditary, they aren't considered mutaions. Why not look it up and get a fucking clue, asshole?

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution

What's the difference? How is it you understand mutations exist but doubt that it is part of evolution? There is no mystery here. We know exactly how mutations occur, and thus how bacteria and viruses change.

As time went on the animals that were larger survived better than those that stayed small. After a few millenia horses were much larger

I thought they got larger because they would eat like a horse. No?

What I don't see though is any evidence where one species takes on traits which are foreign to it. The fossil record seems to show

Fossil records are the tip of the iceberg. Genetics show that the "jumps" are comprised of little changes over time.

Two additional problems are that, 1) mutations never seem to be something that's beneficial for the organism, and 2) there's never been a recorded case of a mutation being passed on from one generation to the next, and therefor carried on (N.S. not being considered a mutation, but a normal variant).

False and false. Mutations are OFTEN times not beneficial to the organism, and many are incompatible with life. They get weeded out. The ones that ARE beneficial, however, are the ones that stick and get passed on. It's foolish to claim we have never recorded mutations being passed on. I can go into any given biology lab in this country, take a bacteria sample, and kill half of it with antibiotics. I can then take the other half, microwave it on low for 30 seconds, and then grow some colonies on the SAME antibiotic. Why? Because I just induced mutations which can otherwise naturally happen with time, and the visibly growing colony is proof that the beneficial mutation is being passed on to subsequent generations.

I can assure you that you have no clue of the things you're talking about, though I doubt it matters to you. Just know that you have, and always will win in these debates -- in your own mind.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I can assure you that you have no clue of the things you're talking about, though I doubt it matters to you. Just know that you have, and always will win in these debates -- in your own mind.

Ah I see. So with absolutely no evidence, supporting information, or actual refutation to ANYTHING I've said, you have determined yourself to be correct.

You seem to acknowledge that genes are inheritable from generation to generation, including differences in genes among a population. How do you think those differences got there? How is it that you believe dwarfism can occur sporadically from two normal stature parents, and yet be an autosomal dominant inheritance? Perhaps you should look up the term "de novo mutation" and get back to me, this time with a little support behind your empty useless words.

 

[JBeukema]

What you're describing is not a mutation.

The albification of a large population of humans isn't a mutation?

The newfound ability to produce enzymes to digest nylon isn't a mutation?

Why not look it up and get a fucking clue, asshole?

Sweet irony, batman!

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

I guess I just don't care about it enough.

 

[Skeptik]

Two additional problems are that, 1) mutations never seem to be something that's beneficial for the organism

Like albification increasing vitamin d production? Or being able to exploit a new food source (see: nylonase)? Or being faster than your predator or blending into a tree trunk? Or being able to run down a gazelle?

2) there's never been a recorded case of a mutation being passed on from one generation to the next

*looks at own skin and compares to parents*

You mean like genetic diseases, red hair, or the various breeds of hounds?

I get the distinct impression you haven't the slightest clue what the fuck you're talking about.

Playing a little rough tonight, eh JBeukema?

I guess I'll waste time with you once anyway; It's you who doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about. What you're describing is not a mutation. The increase of melanin in the skin is a naturally occuring factor in a healthy human being. Some, like black people, have the genetic trait of having large amounts of it which is passed down by birth -- without the need for sun exposure.

Second quote; same answer. Susceptiblilty to certain diseases are simple genetic factors which are ofter hereditary, they aren't considered mutaions. Why not look it up and get a fucking clue, asshole?

Junior high students who use profanity generally do so because of the mistaken belief that it makes them sound tough, or grown up. Adults who do so generally lack facility with the English language.

Just an observation of mine.

As for the mutation, it is light skin that is the mutation. That mutation had a survival advantage for people living in northern climates, as it increased the amount of vitamin D absorbed. It was not a survival advantage in warmer, tropical areas. Now we know why Northern Europeans have lighter skin on average than do people whose ancestors are from sunnier locales.

There. You have a second interesting observation.

 

[antagon]

That's not exactly how it works. ANY mutation that is beneficial to survival is passed on to the next generation. Fish that can breathe air for example when they move from puddle to puddle. That was a mutation that allowed them to live while the others that couldn't died. All evolution begins with mutation. Most mutations are not beneficial so the critter dies. Oftentimes the mutation has no effect because the environment is not one to take advantage of it so it may become recessive or just die out. However, when the mutation and the environment combine to give a particular critter an advantage, then that critter thrives and the others die.

i think the elevation of mutation to the center of evolutionary mechanics is fallacious. certainly gene selection, recombination, natural selection and even epigenetic selection are more plausible driving forces. beyond mere survival, isolation and specialization probably play a central roll in making phenotypes stick, too. darwin's finches weren't likely diversified via eradication or mutation. likely isolation and natural selection played out. survival of the fittest may have been a matter of moving to another niche in the local ecosystem, but sufficient to constitute isolation over time.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I guess I just don't care about it enough.

I would have gone with arrogance mixed with a complete lack of knowledge on the topic, but sure if you want to just claim you're lazy, that works too. But then again, if you didn't care, you wouldn't still be posting.

Try learning a bit more before you attempt "caring" in the form of posting here again.

 

[JBeukema]

i think the elevation of mutation to the center of evolutionary mechanics is fallacious. certainly gene selection, recombination, natural selection and even epigenetic selection are more plausible driving forces.

Without mutation, there aren't different alleles to be selected for or to be activated and deactivated by epigenetic factors.

beyond mere survival, isolation and specialization probably play a central roll in making phenotypes stick, too

\

Without mutation, where do the different phenotypes come from?

. darwin's finches weren't likely diversified via eradication or mutation. likely isolation and natural selection played out

Isolation only leads to diversification if mutations occur to make the populations more diverse.

survival of the fittest may have been a matter of moving to another niche in the local ecosystem, but sufficient to constitute isolation over time.

Again, without first having mutation, none of what you're talking about can happen.

 

[JBeukema]

Visitors found this page by searching for these keywords: o, when she is angry she is keen and shrewd

 

[antagon]

beyond mere survival, isolation and specialization probably play a central roll in making phenotypes stick, too

Without mutation, where do the different phenotypes come from?

generally speaking, ancestral gene pools are more diverse to start with. isolated and sexually selected for an environment, the mechanism whereby mutations, or as increasingly understood, epigenetic variation, affect diversity is predisposed. if one looks at domestication of dogs or agriculture, sexual selection from breeding indicates its capacity to diversify populations without a direct reliance on mutation.

obviously mutation is a part of the equation, but it is one of the elements taken out of proportion to its utility. those confused about evolution's mechanics or even denying it love to latch on to the implausible probability that random mutation is the primary force behind biodiversity. perhaps, rightfully so.

 

[JBeukema]

generally speaking, ancestral gene pools are more diverse to start with.

So you assume life all sprung up independently and take the polygenesis lunacy to the most extreme absurdity? Keep going back, and the branches of the phylogenetic tree merge.

In order to reject mutation as the key and centerpiece to evolutionary mechanics, you must reject the phylogenetic tree and assume that if you go back in time, our evolutionary ancestors were all magically created or sprang up from the dirt independently of eachother. Such constitutes a rejection of evolutionary theory as it is understood in favour of a hypothesis wholly lacking in evidence.

if one looks at domestication of dogs or agriculture, sexual selection from breeding indicates its capacity to diversify populations without a direct reliance on mutation.

How, exactly, do you think wolves became greyhounds, great danes, and pomeranians without 'a direct reliance on mutation'?

obviously mutation is a part of the equation, but it is one of the elements taken out of proportion to its utility

?

Without mutation, there's no selection, no context in which gene flow can occur, and no genetic drift unless you assume the most absurd and extreme case of polygenesis one can possibly concoct while inhaling the fumes from a gas-soaked rag or some magical being creating new versions and new lifeforms whenever it gets bored.

Your entire argument can be fairly characterized as utter absurdity.

 

[antagon]

i don't think you've got a sure grip on genetics, beukema. while heredity will narrow as you 'keep going back', generally, the genome expands. i think genome degradation is the term for the general trend. it is affected by selection. wolves possess genes for much of the variations in dogs which we are familiar with. sexual selection for genes can and has brought about the chihuahua, where it is difficult to argue that this was facilitated by mutations.

look into how recombination works, man. your jump to conclude that what i've explained is something different than how evolution is understood to work is far fetched. evolution is dependent on genetics, and there's plenty more to it than mutation. i think that your assumption that its either polygenesis or mutation betrays some holes in your fundamental grasp of the subject. the idea that high frequency of mutation is probable in stable (ie mammalian vs. bacterial) genomes is a bit ignorant, too. one of the implications of genome reduction/degradation/shrinkage (?) is a narrowing of the propensity to mutate. look into how sex works first, then see the relationship between junk DNA in more primative genomes and the nucleotide elasticity that lends to high frequencies of mutation in the first place. you will not be looking at mammalian DNA with this sort of environment.

hey, this is one of the facilitators of your phylogenetic inertia. look at the implications of it in endosymbionts. such parasites have little capacity for mutation or any other sort of diversification.

 

[geauxtohell]

Because 98% of the water on the planet is rendered undrinkable

And about .000000000000000000000000000000001% of that water is found inland.

When we decided to become land dwellers, we obviously had to adapt a new strategy for hydration.

********************************

When we decided to become land dwellers......... LOL.

It was tongue in cheek.

Don't confuse me with the dumbasses who don't understand evolutionary theory.

 

[konradv]

Mutations in nature are a given, I'm not disputing this, and bacteria and viruses with their ability to constantly change I think is a mystery, but not necessarily an indication of evolution -- except as a possible example of the one tenet of Darwinism that I do accept: that of Natural Selection. Show me a single-celled organism that became a double-celled one, and then I think you'd have'd something.

And with the bird plumage, etc. point, yes, I do agree with Natural Selcetion because we see it everywhere in nature. But I don't see any evidence of one species becoming greater or changing into another.

Multi-celled organisms didn't necessarily develop because a single-cell split and decided to stay in contact, but that different single cells congregated together for mutual advantage.

As for not seeing evidence of change, what of the fossil record? Have you completely dismissed it or is it just one of those things you "don't see"? There's not seeing and there's being willfully blind to what's been unearthed over the years. Which category do you fall into?

You decide. And what is it about the fossil record I'm missing? And for your first question, are you saying that different organisms came together to form a single lifeform? That's new to me.

You seem to be missing the progression of species. If it isn't evolution, what is it? As for organisms coming together for mutual advantage, lichens are the most common modern example. There's also a theory that mitochondria are actually ancient bacteria absorbed by eukaryotic cells.

 

[HUGGY]

If we evolved from the oceans, how come we can't drink salt water?

our bodies are the same percentage of salt and water as the ocean.

poor frank.

a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Have a grown up read the OP to you and take off your partisan blinders.

Why can't we drink salt water? How is that an effective evolutionary strategy?

We should be able to readily drink either fresh or salt water

I understand why you have a serious problem with thought provoking questions, it's apparent in your "answers"

Evolution is not a strategy. At least it wasn't before the brain grew in several species to the point where conscious choice was and is the predominant factor as is with humans. Early sea animals probably sought relief from oxygen starved tidal water and found they could breath in our atmosphere which has changed as the sea has in oxygen content. They didn't escape the ocean water because of salt content. One simple possibility is that an organism has to do less work to proccess out excess salt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As far as the absurd "inland dweller" explanation, why is every single major human civilization throughout our entire history found on a coast or doing commerce over the oceans?

Greece, Rome, Egypt, Phoenicians, Goths, Sumerians, Mayan, Aztec, Haudenosaunee, all of them coast dweller.