How We Are Evolving

[Charles_Main]

Possibly the best example of Evolution in Action right now is Male pattern balding

No need for hair do to living inside and owning hats

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Men have been bald for more than 2000 years.

That won't work.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Why don't mutations happen at the same rate across all species? Then they cannot be random, right?

I think this is the first genuine question you've asked, which is a large step in the right direction, and I commend you for it.

Different species have different fidelity when they replicate their DNA. Some species are very good at just getting it right the first time, while others make many mistakes when duplicating DNA. Some species are REALLY good at fixing mistakes, while others have no repair mechanisms whatsoever. These differences, ironically enough, are due to mutations and differences in expressed genes. The end result is a difference in mutation frequency.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why don't mutations happen at the same rate across all species? Then they cannot be random, right?

I think this is the first genuine question you've asked, which is a large step in the right direction, and I commend you for it.

Different species have different fidelity when they replicate their DNA. Some species are very good at just getting it right the first time, while others make many mistakes when duplicating DNA. Some species are REALLY good at fixing mistakes, while others have no repair mechanisms whatsoever. These differences, ironically enough, are due to mutations and differences in expressed genes. The end result is a difference in mutation frequency.

Which species repair mutations?

 

[Charles_Main]

Men have been bald for more than 2000 years.

That won't work.

We have been living mostly inside since before then. So actually it will, But I was just kidding anyways

 

[Charles_Main]

The discovery channel did a show about sex, In it they said that we lost most of our body hair, when we stood up on 2 legs. According to them, because it meant our bodies were less exposed to the sun.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

the cooler theory I read is that there were three varieties of chimps, the bonobo, which live in forests, the robust, which live on the savannas, and a third variety that lived mostly along lakes and rivers. The aquatic variety spent most of their time in the water, which is why they lost the hair, it interferes in swimming. It also explains the front to front sex and the fact that infants can swim at birth.

 

[Samson]

Aligators don't change because the pressure is on them not to change. You make a change, you don't survive.

Humans are in all kinds of weird environments. And we make our own. Human populations are spread all over the place. there are huge pressures that make for huge differentiations.

Alligators can't do much about the fact that they need hot temperatures and fresh water.

Humans are everywhere, and we are infinitely adaptable. But our environments all put different pressures on us which can cause large cosmetic changes in very few generations.

So, how does this explain my sudden nasal hair problem?

 

[Samson]

The discovery channel did a show about sex, In it they said that we lost most of our body hair, when we stood up on 2 legs. According to them, because it meant our bodies were less exposed to the sun.

What's this "we" crap?

 

[JBeukema]

the cooler theory I read is that there were three varieties of chimps, the bonobo, which live in forests, the robust, which live on the savannas, and a third variety that lived mostly along lakes and rivers. The aquatic variety spent most of their time in the water, which is why they lost the hair, it interferes in swimming. It also explains the front to front sex and the fact that infants can swim at birth.

AAH has no evidence behind it and has been thoroughly refuted.

 

[Charles_Main]

the cooler theory I read is that there were three varieties of chimps, the bonobo, which live in forests, the robust, which live on the savannas, and a third variety that lived mostly along lakes and rivers. The aquatic variety spent most of their time in the water, which is why they lost the hair, it interferes in swimming. It also explains the front to front sex and the fact that infants can swim at birth.

AAH has no evidence behind it and has been thoroughly refuted.

You know, if you take a new born human and toss them in a pool. A crazy things happens, at least some of the time. They tread water.

Once they are older they have all sorts of fears about it, and think they can not do it, But most humans actually do have the instincts to at least tread water. If they do not panic.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

the cooler theory I read is that there were three varieties of chimps, the bonobo, which live in forests, the robust, which live on the savannas, and a third variety that lived mostly along lakes and rivers. The aquatic variety spent most of their time in the water, which is why they lost the hair, it interferes in swimming. It also explains the front to front sex and the fact that infants can swim at birth.

AAH has no evidence behind it and has been thoroughly refuted.

How and by whom? Enquiring minds want to know...

I just think it fits the rule of cool

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's absolutely amazing. It's like you can't keep TWO concepts in your head at the same time. This process needs both mutation, a random process, and some isolation of that mutation, such as natural selection, which is a NON-RANDOM process. It needs both. I don't quite understand how you can focus on one while forgetting the other, and then flip.

Random mutations don't "care". The non-random isolation of those random mutations do.

Sooner or later someone always tries to make this argument, and they always demonstrate their complete lack of basic math skills when they do.
Why is it always people that have a pretty solid grounding in biology that have so much trouble grasping simple statistics?

The only way to eliminate random chance in any equation that has a random factor is by introducing intelligent intervention. Natural selection is not intelligent design, and thus does not eliminate the randomness of mutations. In fact, natural selection is a misnomer of the process that has stayed in vogue long pass its utility. Ultimately, natural selection is simply whoever survives long enough to reproduce. This is just as random as everything else about evolution.

No, because once again you need BOTH aspects to this dumbed down version of evolution. Even IF mutations happened at the same rate across every species, which they don't, the environmental pressures are not the same. You give a dog the option between sleeping in a warm house or sleeping outside, it'll choose the warm house every time. You give humans the same option, and eventually one person will get pissed at another, be stubborn, and head out into the cold. We are notorious for ignoring environmental stressors.

You like going back to alligators for some reason. How many times have you seen an alligator forgo its native waters to just stroll onto land and take up hunting small game? Yet humans have no problem boarding a ship, sailing half-way across the world, and assuming they'll figure out how to survive regardless of the environment once they get there.

Do you have some type of documentation to back up your assertion that some species are less evolved than other species?

 

[xotoxi]

We have evolved so much that if I mated with a Tibetan in a low oxygen atmosphere, I would likely pass out due to hypoxia and not be able to mate.

But, if some of my jizz got all up in there, the offspring would be sterile.

 

[asterism]

the cooler theory I read is that there were three varieties of chimps, the bonobo, which live in forests, the robust, which live on the savannas, and a third variety that lived mostly along lakes and rivers. The aquatic variety spent most of their time in the water, which is why they lost the hair, it interferes in swimming. It also explains the front to front sex and the fact that infants can swim at birth.

You ever throw a baby into a pool? Lemme know how that works out.

Kids have to be taught how to swim.

 

[asterism]

the cooler theory I read is that there were three varieties of chimps, the bonobo, which live in forests, the robust, which live on the savannas, and a third variety that lived mostly along lakes and rivers. The aquatic variety spent most of their time in the water, which is why they lost the hair, it interferes in swimming. It also explains the front to front sex and the fact that infants can swim at birth.

AAH has no evidence behind it and has been thoroughly refuted.

You know, if you take a new born human and toss them in a pool. A crazy things happens, at least some of the time. They tread water.

Once they are older they have all sorts of fears about it, and think they can not do it, But most humans actually do have the instincts to at least tread water. If they do not panic.

I'd like to see some statistics to back that up.

I know that the infant mortality rate due to drowning is 1.3%. That doesn't support your point.

National Child Mortality Data

 

[JBeukema]

Dogs can learn to swim, too. Some breeds have been bred for it.

I guess they evolved from 'aquatic hounds'-hence the streamlined shape of a greyhound's head

 

[SmarterThanHick]

That's absolutely amazing. It's like you can't keep TWO concepts in your head at the same time. This process needs both mutation, a random process, and some isolation of that mutation, such as natural selection, which is a NON-RANDOM process. It needs both. I don't quite understand how you can focus on one while forgetting the other, and then flip.

Random mutations don't "care". The non-random isolation of those random mutations do.

Why is it always people that have a pretty solid grounding in biology that have so much trouble grasping simple statistics?

The only way to eliminate random chance in any equation that has a random factor is by introducing intelligent intervention. Natural selection is not intelligent design, and thus does not eliminate the randomness of mutations. In fact, natural selection is a misnomer of the process that has stayed in vogue long pass its utility. Ultimately, natural selection is simply whoever survives long enough to reproduce. This is just as random as everything else about evolution.

It appears you have trouble reading. Allow me to help. You are correct in saying natural selection does not eliminate randomness of mutations. Lucky for me, nothing I said contradicts that. No, what I said was that environmental pressures themselves are non-random selection on random mutation. They don't affect the frequency of the mutations from happening, they just pick and choose which mutations are more likely to be passed on. An "intelligent" intervention is not required to produce non-random outcomes from a random population. The only thing that is needed is a filter of some sort. In this case, natural selection is that filter.

This concept can be demonstrated with a simple thought experiment. Imagine a game where different sized objects are randomly selected from a bag. Now let's impose a filter: let's say a small round hole. The first object you draw is a large square, and it doesn't fit in the round hole. After drawing all objects, you're only left with small circular ones. A non-random filter produced a non-random outcome when imposed on a random sample. The filter need not be intelligent, it just needs to be a filter. Now you can claim natural selection itself is a randomly selected filter, and we can get into the meta-philosophy of what really is "random", but that's just a silly argument and doesn't practically pertain to this discussion.

No, because once again you need BOTH aspects to this dumbed down version of evolution. Even IF mutations happened at the same rate across every species, which they don't, the environmental pressures are not the same. You give a dog the option between sleeping in a warm house or sleeping outside, it'll choose the warm house every time. You give humans the same option, and eventually one person will get pissed at another, be stubborn, and head out into the cold. We are notorious for ignoring environmental stressors.

You like going back to alligators for some reason. How many times have you seen an alligator forgo its native waters to just stroll onto land and take up hunting small game? Yet humans have no problem boarding a ship, sailing half-way across the world, and assuming they'll figure out how to survive regardless of the environment once they get there.

Do you have some type of documentation to back up your assertion that some species are less evolved than other species?

Once again it appears you have trouble reading. Can you point out where I stated some species are "less evolved" than others? I recommend however that you google "phylogenetics" for more information on tracking evolution over time.

What I DID state was that mutation frequency is not constant across species. Eukaryotes and prokaryotes have completely different DNA polymerase altogether. Heck even wikipedia has an article on mutation rate. If that and its sources are not sufficient, there are 700 articles with "mutation rate" in their titles on pubmed. Let me know if you want any more documentation.

In the meantime, I recommend you phrase your questions in a tone that connotes desire to learn instead of distrustful challenge, as you're not yet tall enough to ride the high horse.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm still waiting for some scholarly articles on Evolution. I get low brow stuff from "Discover" and "SCientific American"

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sure. Any specific topic you'd like to start with?

In the meantime, start with this one: Evolution: setting the mutation rate
It's a review article, not primary literature. We can start there and if you want more complexity move onto specific research.