Ask me about Evolution

[Curious George]

Nope. There isn't any major unsolved problems or any physical evidence that Evolution runs into that greatly shakes up it's foundation.

Not that I can think of anyway.

Perhaps that is because you do not know enough about the subject. There are gaps UN every subject.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

If these are neutral then by definition they are not naturally selected. The controlling factor here then is genetic drift and not natural selection. Now accumulated neutral mutations can have a net benefit especially in the event of a major world change. Yet, this concept is not in line with natural selection since the distribution is not controlled by natural selection but rather primarily by genetic drift.

It's allowed by Natural Selection. It's not like these processes you mentioned somehow bypassed Natural Selection.

The processes you mention, has to, in a sense, answer to Natural Selection first before they happen. Neutral mutations are neutral with respect to the environment, not despite it.

This is why Natural Selection is so significant in Evolution. I really should say Environmental Selection though, to include both Natural and Artifical Selection(breeding).

Horizontal gene transfer again is not controlled by natural selection, rather horizontal gene transfer can benefit one group simply by random chance.

Yeah, like I said, Natural Selection isn't a driving force of any mechanism that causes direct change in life forms(horizontal gene transfer or otherwise). But whatever traits that are the result of any given process responsible, has to answer to the environment in the end.

Again we see a deviation from natural selection. This does not mean that natural selection is not a driving force, it just means that natural selection is not the only factor.

None of those other factors happen despite Natural Selection. They are of a lower precedence. They're meaningless without Natural Selection but not vice versa. The term "neutral mutation" is meaningless without Natural Selection.

 

[Sculelos]

DNA and RNA break down in isolated inbreeding animals, this leads to strange traits and characteristics that often lead to their extinction if they migrate without finding mates outside of their isolation.

Human DNA and RNA is actually very damaged right now which is why if you mate with a immediate family member there is about a 50% chance that they will end up with a serious defect, however certain parts tend to get damaged in certain individuals over-time. Expose yourself to extreme radiation for long periods of time for many generations and you end up with black people. Hide away in a hole like a hermit crab for many generations and you can end up with albinos.

Usually DNA and RNA damage is minimized if people with diverse RNA and DNA mix they only have a 25% chance of passing on their respective DNA and a 25% chance that RNA gene will be chosen instead.

RNA is form and function genes and your body sometimes chooses these over DNA genes if it finds reason enough.

DNA is hard wired genetics code and your body can not change these no matter how hard it tries. DNA code CAN be added but it can NEVER be removed but it can become damaged and damaged DNA can and does cause harmful mutations, RNA damage causes variation which might sometimes be beneficial however RNA will never change DNA and DNA will never change RNA, the only way to change DNA or RNA is to double or triple the information that the Genomes hold.

It is possible to create Hybrid Animals and some of the Ancients indeed tried this and it created some strange Dragons which is a good lesson why it's not really a good idea to mess with Genetics when we don't really understand the full consequences that alteration can bring.

In short I'm saying from a physics standpoint and a biology standpoint, Evolution is possible BUT NOT in a very gradual slight way. Any beneficial evolution MUST manifest itself in the majority in less then 7 generations or it will be lost and the genome will revert back to the base information.

 

[Curious George]

It's allowed by Natural Selection. It's not like these processes you mentioned somehow bypassed Natural Selection.

The processes you mention, has to, in a sense, answer to Natural Selection first before they happen. Neutral mutations are neutral with respect to the environment, not despite it.

This is why Natural Selection is so significant in Evolution. I really should say Environmental Selection though, to include both Natural and Artifical Selection(breeding).



Yeah, like I said, Natural Selection isn't a driving force of any mechanism that causes direct change in life forms(horizontal gene transfer or otherwise). But whatever traits that are the result of any given process responsible, has to answer to the environment in the end.



None of those other factors happen despite Natural Selection. They are of a lower precedence. They're meaningless without Natural Selection but not vice versa. The term "neutral mutation" is meaningless without Natural Selection.

I just don't see a hierarchy here and believe you are pulling it out of a hat. Some threads ago I had the unfortunate experience of trying to rationalize with people who insisted gravity was the most powerful thing. Nothing is so black and white. No evolutionary process is higher or lower, rather they all interact. Darwinian evolution is not a complete view or understanding. If it makes you feel better to incorporate other evolutionary mechanisms into Neo Darwinism that's okay, but make sure to acknowledge the other factors as well. Natural selection is not the force behind it all.

 

[Curious George]

DNA and RNA break down in isolated inbreeding animals, this leads to strange traits and characteristics that often lead to their extinction if they migrate without finding mates outside of their isolation.

Human DNA and RNA is actually very damaged right now which is why if you mate with a immediate family member there is about a 50% chance that they will end up with a serious defect, however certain parts tend to get damaged in certain individuals over-time. Expose yourself to extreme radiation for long periods of time for many generations and you end up with black people. Hide away in a hole like a hermit crab for many generations and you can end up with albinos.

Usually DNA and RNA damage is minimized if people with diverse RNA and DNA mix they only have a 25% chance of passing on their respective DNA and a 25% chance that RNA gene will be chosen instead.

RNA is form and function genes and your body sometimes chooses these over DNA genes if it finds reason enough.

DNA is hard wired genetics code and your body can not change these no matter how hard it tries. DNA code CAN be added but it can NEVER be removed but it can become damaged and damaged DNA can and does cause harmful mutations, RNA damage causes variation which might sometimes be beneficial however RNA will never change DNA and DNA will never change RNA, the only way to change DNA or RNA is to double or triple the information that the Genomes hold.

It is possible to create Hybrid Animals and some of the Ancients indeed tried this and it created some strange Dragons which is a good lesson why it's not really a good idea to mess with Genetics when we don't really understand the full consequences that alteration can bring.

In short I'm saying from a physics standpoint and a biology standpoint, Evolution is possible BUT NOT in a very gradual slight way. Any beneficial evolution MUST manifest itself in the majority in less then 7 generations or it will be lost and the genome will revert back to the base information.

This is wrong.

But on another note, beneficial is relative to perspective.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I just don't see a hierarchy here and believe you are pulling it out of a hat. Some threads ago I had the unfortunate experience of trying to rationalize with people who insisted gravity was the most powerful thing. Nothing is so black and white. No evolutionary process is higher or lower, rather they all interact. Darwinian evolution is not a complete view or understanding. If it makes you feel better to incorporate other evolutionary mechanisms into Neo Darwinism that's okay, but make sure to acknowledge the other factors as well. Natural selection is not the force behind it all.

It's simply. If you take away Natural Selection, the whole theory falls apart. You can take away all those other things you mentioned though, and the theory still works fine.

And no matter what, all traits that come about(for whatever reason) have to answer to Natural Selection.

 

[Curious George]

It's simply. If you take away Natural Selection, the whole theory falls apart. You can take away all those other things you mentioned though, and the theory still works fine.

And no matter what, all traits that come about(for whatever reason) have to answer to Natural Selection.

Yes, I suppose you could take away many parts of evolution, you can also take away numbers from math and letters from the alphabet, but doing so will leave you with an incomplete understanding.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yes, I suppose you could take away many parts of evolution, you can also take away numbers from math and letters from the alphabet, but doing so will leave you with an incomplete understanding.

We're speaking about what makes evolution a workable theory, not what details a body of knowledge has or hasn't.

I think you're missing the point entirely. I'm not suggesting those factors you mention aren't real or don't happen. I'm suggesting evolution can happen without them. It can not happen without Natural Selection though.

And I'm point out that they are NOT a "deviation" from Natural Selection as it's still involved one way or another.

 

[Curious George]

We're speaking about what makes evolution a workable theory, not what details a body of knowledge has or hasn't.

I think you're missing the point entirely. I'm not suggesting those factors you mention aren't real or don't happen. I'm suggesting evolution can happen without them. It can not happen without Natural Selection though.

And I'm point out that they are NOT a "deviation" from Natural Selection as it's still involved one way or another.

Oh they are not? What exactly is natural selection?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Oh they are not? What exactly is natural selection?

Nope. No more than random mutations. You're just pointing out alternatives to changes to genes themselves, but not an alternative to what survives and what doesn't.

In short, Natural Selection is a process where the environment determines what traits(specifically, genes) survive and what don't. It does NOT determine the genes themselves.

It's meaningless to talk about what traits are advantageous, neutral or detrimental without Natural Selection.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. No more than random mutations. You're just pointing out alternatives to changes to genes themselves, but not an alternative to what survives and what doesn't.

In short, Natural Selection is a process where the environment determines what traits(specifically, genes) survive and what don't. It does NOT determine the genes themselves.

It's meaningless to talk about what traits are advantageous, neutral or detrimental without Natural Selection.

So, natural selection does not suggest gradual and incremental changes which through heredity are favored over time due to fitness. Your definition of natural selection seems more akin to fitness.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So, natural selection does not suggest gradual and incremental changes which through heredity are favored over time due to fitness.

That sounds more like a definition of Evolution it self.

Your definition of natural selection seems more akin to fitness.

It's what gives the word "fitness" any relevance.

In the context of Evolution, nothing is "fit" regardless of environment, in other words.

Going to sleep now, bye.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. No more than random mutations. You're just pointing out alternatives to changes to genes themselves, but not an alternative to what survives and what doesn't.

In short, Natural Selection is a process where the environment determines what traits(specifically, genes) survive and what don't. It does NOT determine the genes themselves.

It's meaningless to talk about what traits are advantageous, neutral or detrimental without Natural Selection.

So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that since changes in organisms will eventually interact and their traits will be subject to the process of natural selection, the mechanism by which those changes originally occurred are accorded to natural selection?

I am sorry but this is not so. Natural selection is the mechanism by which traits which produce an advantage are passed through vertical gene transfer. Gradually, the traits that are most advantageous will be predominant in a species. In this mechanism we see that genes and changes are favored through a slow incremental change. But the changes which I suggested were not a byproduct of this process. Sure the changes would ultimately be incorporated into the natural selection process but the changes did not result from natural selection.

Mutations are a slightly different story since mutations are part of natural selection in that they are inherent to reproduction. But mutations are mostly random and therefore also not a byproduct of natural selection.

You seem intimately tied to natural selection as the end all be all. Do not mistake me, I am not trying to suggest that natural selection is not an extremely important mechanism. But it is only one of several, and all of the mechanisms are important. Evolution would be entirely different if not for all of the mechanisms of evolution. However, I consider most views on evolution unnecessarily limited by the essentially equating evolution to natural selection. Which is mostly what I have heard.

My point is simple. We do not know everything about evolution. There are gaps. And yet people assert the evolution card like it is the simplest notion in the world and those who don't get it must have their heads in the sand and their hearts filled with willful ignorance. There are certainly some like that. But in reality evolution is not as simple as a+b=c. There are many facets, indeed fields of study, involved. We can present a pretty little picture but that is being intellectually dishonest to paint the picture as we do for every fourth grader. I am not sure what your science background is, but, I find your explanation of evolution is lacking, your definitions are off the mark, and your idea that there are no gaps in understanding in evolution is dishonest. I will assume that the misunderstanding is do to my inability to comprehend what you are saying. I will assume you do understand evolution. I will assume you honestly tried to address my questions. Sometimes I am just not smart enough to get it though.

Cheers.

 

[Man of Faith]

So when you say "evolution", you mean "science".

It's the politically acceptable science of the day, but not necessarily the truth. Matter of fact, it doesn't even match the data, but it is forced down out throats because of the philosophies behind it.

 

[secret2]

It's the politically acceptable science of the day, but not necessarily the truth. Matter of fact, it doesn't even match the data, but it is forced down out throats because of the philosophies behind it.

Oh, "Grand Scientific Conspiracy" again?

 

[savagewind]

There isn't enough intellectual discoveries that are similar to even consider the two being connected in anyway.

They aren't connected

 

[savagewind]

If you are questioning whether similarities in genetic code indicate ancestral relationship or not, then you are outside the realm of criticizing just evolution. You are questioning sexual reproduction itself, and how it works.

That is not what it's about. It is about the similarities of discovery. It has nothing to do with sex. You use one RULE for explaining similarities in species but throw away the same rule (similarities in two things PROVES common descent) in regards to similarities involving inspiration. It is indeed apples to oranges if it was about sex vs thought. But it isn't. It's about similarities in offspring and similarities in illumination. Seeing the bullies of evolutions keep saying read it....and don't argue about what you don't know... and all kinds of other insults (like perverse) maybe they shouldn't talk about multiple discoveries.

Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science

Why not look up "common pattern"?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That is not what it's about. It is about the similarities of discovery. It has nothing to do with sex. You use one RULE for explaining similarities in species but throw away the same rule (similarities in two things PROVES common descent) in regards to similarities involving inspiration. It is indeed apples to oranges if it was about sex vs thought. But it isn't. It's about similarities in offspring and similarities in illumination. Seeing the bullies of evolutions keep saying read it....and don't argue about what you don't know... and all kinds of other insults (like perverse) maybe they shouldn't talk about multiple discoveries.



Why not look up "common pattern"?

No It's apple to oranges because how comparing two completely different things. It's like comparing a fish and monkeys ability to climb trees. The notion that since discoveries can be made by un-linked things means that species don't have to be linked through common descent falls on two different premises. I can see the point you are trying to make its what you're comparing that needs to be reworked.

 

[savagewind]

It is apples to apples and this is why I think so. (I might be wrong unlike you, I must be on another branch of that tree).

You see evidence of similarities in species. Actually it all began because of the reverse which is differences in species. So now you see similarities in species and claim PROOF! that somewhere in the past those two species definitely had a common ancestor. Keep imagining back far enough and you get to proof of common descent.

Now you are being made aware of similarities in discoveries. (theory of evolution of species, independently advanced in the 19th century by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace). And you begin to imagine Darwin is some kind of hero and poor Wallace is not anything. But they both shed light on the phenomenon. In that way they share similarities. You say their similarities are not connected. That's right! When I first heard about the phenomenon of multiple discoveries I wondered if brains are connected some how. If they were, there would be a connection to explain multiple discoveries.

Do you want to say multiple discoveries are not real?

 

[secret2]

It is apples to apples and this is why I think so. (I might be wrong unlike you, I must be on another branch of that tree).

You see evidence of similarities in species. Actually it all began because of the reverse which is differences in species. So now you see similarities in species and claim PROOF! that somewhere in the past those two species definitely had a common ancestor. Keep imagining back far enough and you get to proof of common descent.

Now you are being made aware of similarities in discoveries. (theory of evolution of species, independently advanced in the 19th century by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace). And you begin to imagine Darwin is some kind of hero and poor Wallace is not anything. But they both shed light on the phenomenon. In that way they share similarities. You say their similarities are not connected. That's right! When I first heard about the phenomenon of multiple discoveries I wondered if brains are connected some how. If they were, there would be a connection to explain multiple discoveries.

Do you want to say multiple discoveries are not real?

Biologists and zoologists don't just look at two organisms and conclude that there is a common ancestor. They ask why the two are similar, and how the similarities could be preserved and passed on over many generations. We now know the mechanism that is responsible, or course. It's called Dee-En-Ay.

So, can you find a similarly rigorously tested entity/mechanism in your "similar theory hypothesis"?