Evolution Question

[∑₭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.

 

[antagon]

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.

∑₭o Đ∆Żə, think about the defacto symbiosis in complex organisms. aren't we a collaboration of living specialized cells? then think of more primative examples like konrad's lichens or even better, the portugese man o war. if you could accept the potential for natural selection and other evolutionary mechanics to affect and transfer advantageous change, either within symbiosis or within a single organism, the idea of simple life constituting complex life over time is not implausible.

 

[antagon]

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.

your capacity for thought refutes intelligent design. reading this argument, a couple things come to mind: 1] humans have been around for around 200,000 years, and your history has been around for 3% of that. 2] the 200,000 years homo sapiens has been around is about .03% of the time which plants and animals have been evolving on land.

notwithstanding the biochemical implications of land-dwelling salt-water hydrators, could you appreciate that our interactions with other shit on land from plants to streams to prey might have advantaged our adaptation to that environment instead of the ocean?

do you have webbed feet or something?

 

[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.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

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.

∑₭o Đ∆Żə, think about the defacto symbiosis in complex organisms. aren't we a collaboration of living specialized cells? then think of more primative examples like konrad's lichens or even better, the portugese man o war. if you could accept the potential for natural selection and other evolutionary mechanics to affect and transfer advantageous change, either within symbiosis or within a single organism, the idea of simple life constituting complex life over time is not implausible.

If I am missing the progression of species, it's only because I have yet to see any real evidence for it. Fungai, viruses, and bacteria do some remarkable things, but none of this suggests to me a "progression of species".

Symbiotic relationships occur right in our own bodies, some of which we would not survive long without (digestive enzymes, etc.), but I don't think that this constitutes 'us' -- myself and my enzymes -- as becoming a single living organism. Lichens appear to have two states in with they live (two, and two only); to live singly, or to come together and form composites. It could even be thought that these composites then become a sort of Borg collective (Heh-heh), but I still only see the two states, and not a progression of any kind beyond that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

 

[∑₭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.

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

 

[Skeptik]

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?

Alligators haven't evolved thumbs because thumbs do not help them survive. Can you picture an alligator using thumbs to manipulate tools?

We haven't evolved the ability to process salt water, as that is not a survival trait.

It's really very simple. If a mutation, or change, helps a creature survive and pass on its DNA more successfully, even a little more successfully, than the non mutated organism, then that trait gets passed on to future generations. If it doesn't, then it doesn't get passed on.

Webbed feet are a great advantage to ducks, but not so much for pigeons. Therefore, ducks have webbed feet and pigeons do not.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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?

It's called NATURAL selection, not societal selection. You're pointing out HUMAN civilization. Do humans represent the typical animal? Do most land animals live on a coast to do commerce over the oceans? For that matter: why the hell do you think evolution has anything to do with commerce?

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?

First off, you have shown that your "understanding" of evolution is crap, and that you're not interested in actually understanding the concept. Secondly, I addressed this in a previous post in this thread. Here's a copy for you. Maybe you'll read for a change:

The naive question is usually something like "But if evolution gives us advantageous things, why can't we fly? Or shoot lasers from our eyes? Or have two hearts? Or fly?!" Natural selection has little to do with what you want, and everything to do with environmental pressures.​

Alligators had no environmental pressure for pincer grasping. They're able to hold onto their food very well with just their teeth. Similarly, they did not have pressure to develop laser eyes.

 

[JBeukema]

First sign you have no clue about evolution: you think conscious thought, intent, or 'reason' has anything to do with it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

It seems that your home-brewed definition of mutation is modeled after the X-Men instead of the actual meaning. Lucky for us, the entirety of the scientific community defines mutation on the genetic level, which does not necessarily lead to phenotypic changes.

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.

Your next mistake is believing that current understand of evolution is defined from findings 200 years ago. Darwin didn't even know what DNA was at the time, and yet you completely halt your understanding of evolution with him, as if that was all that was available.

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.

There is no such thing as a "perfect sequence". The rest of your "reasoning" stems off this poor idea, which is in no way supported.

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.

Except we do. As I've pointed out. And you've ignored. Well done.

Just curious though: why is it you think a horse and donkey can bread?

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Now I can see why you call yourself SmarterThanHick because you are so smart. I guess the reason a horse and a donkey can bread is beause their DNA matches close enough. Now you tell me the right reason. And also tell me why mules are 'end breeders'.

 

[JBeukema]

horse and a donkey can bread

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Mice and rats can breed.

Scientists produce rats born from mice - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

 

[JBeukema]

Is Eko trying to make some sort of point?

More distantly related species are thought to have hybridized to produce certain oceanic species.

What of it?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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 horse and a donkey can bread is beause their DNA matches close enough.

So which is it? How do you state that there have been no taxonomy changes, and also claim there are a number of distinct animals where "DNA matches close enough"?

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

That's why I asked you to tell me, I'm not smart like you.

Also, tell me why a horse is still a horse, a donkey is still a donkey, and a mule is always a mule.

(a rouse is always a rouse too)







Nothing? Okay, I got one for you guys...

After Rudolph Boysen made his famous hybrid "the Boysenberry" how come the raspberry and the blackberry didn't die off and become extinct?

 

[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.

 

[marksinvirginia]

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?

Alligators haven't evolved thumbs because thumbs do not help them survive. Can you picture an alligator using thumbs to manipulate tools?

We haven't evolved the ability to process salt water, as that is not a survival trait.

It's really very simple. If a mutation, or change, helps a creature survive and pass on its DNA more successfully, even a little more successfully, than the non mutated organism, then that trait gets passed on to future generations. If it doesn't, then it doesn't get passed on.

Webbed feet are a great advantage to ducks, but not so much for pigeons. Therefore, ducks have webbed feet and pigeons do not.

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

It appears that every physical trait found in today's various animal life forms are attributed to some evolutionary process. Thus, in back-tracking, you find that all present land dwellers at one time in the past... crawled out of the freekin' sea. How about all the present sea-dwellers? I guess they are happy being wet and slimy... and never considered becoming beach-boys, right?

I'm sure all of this discussion will eventually leads to man evolving from stinking apes, right? I will concede that there are certain, of the (so-called) human species, that are still in the ape-to-man evolutionary process that have yet to fully "evolve."


~Mark

 

[antagon]

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.

∑₭o Đ∆Żə, think about the defacto symbiosis in complex organisms. aren't we a collaboration of living specialized cells? then think of more primative examples like konrad's lichens or even better, the portugese man o war. if you could accept the potential for natural selection and other evolutionary mechanics to affect and transfer advantageous change, either within symbiosis or within a single organism, the idea of simple life constituting complex life over time is not implausible.

If I am missing the progression of species, it's only because I have yet to see any real evidence for it. Fungai, viruses, and bacteria do some remarkable things, but none of this suggests to me a "progression of species".

Symbiotic relationships occur right in our own bodies, some of which we would not survive long without (digestive enzymes, etc.), but I don't think that this constitutes 'us' -- myself and my enzymes -- as becoming a single living organism. Lichens appear to have two states in with they live (two, and two only); to live singly, or to come together and form composites. It could even be thought that these composites then become a sort of Borg collective (Heh-heh), but I still only see the two states, and not a progression of any kind beyond that.

enzymes themselves are not living, self-replicating cells like those which produce them, but i think you get the point about symbiosis. i suppose one would have to 'open one's eyes' to see real evidence for a progression of species. what i see are simple prokaryotes and eukaryotes (single-cells), more advanced euks, colonial euks which the population is deleterious to their existence, colonial euks which the population is advantageous to their existence, colonial euks which exist via symbiosis with other colonies for an advantage, and more advanced creatures which possess this same symbiosis of specialized cells. this progression only goes as far as primitive plants and corals thus far, although this same character of symbiosis can apply to humans as we've discussed.

examples of life which can be characterized by each step in the progression above exist in our world today, facilitating study of their genetic relationship to other creatures and affording some conclusions based on genetics that there is heredity between simpler and more advanced organisms. furthermore, the fossil record also shows a progression of organisms from simple sludges (colonies) 600 million years ago (often determined by the mineral traces left by their metabolism) to periods when increasingly complex life lived and died, millions of years later.

i don't see how there isn't a progression.