Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[socharlie]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away

what is junk DNA and why it exists?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Otherwise ask away

Could it be said that an instinctual or intrinsic base of knowledge in an animal (instinct) is a physical adaptation of memory cells that come pre-built within the brain? And could it be said that this is not much different than the gestational growth/development of any other physical attribute (like bone size/location, tendon positioning and connection, physicalities of ocular instrumentation, etc. etc. etc.)

For example Bolas Spiders who know that their means of catching prey must involve coating a strand of web in a pseudo-moth-pheromone they produce, despite never having even come in contact with a parent spider. Is this simply a portion of the brain that grows with that information "pre-programmed" into it, or is the mechanism by which instinct is synthesized much different than that?

 

[sayak83]

It would be helpful if you read the question, understood it, and then responded appropriately.

The question has two parts:

1. HOW did sexual reproduction evolve
and
2. WHY did sexual reproduction evolve

Even assuming that your long cut-and-paste answered the latter part of the question, it fails miserably at answering the first part.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is some species of animal (I'll call it a bibbab) that only reproduces asexually. Let's also assume that one single point mutation is sufficient to make the bibbab reproduce sexually. Obviously, this is an extremely generous assumption! Let's also assume that the bibbab will spend the first half of its life reproducing asexually and the second half reproducing sexually. We will assume that the bibbab has a four-sexual-cycle lifespan.

So, during the first two cycles, the bibbab reproduces asexually producing one copy of itself that survives the first year, and each of these bibbabs produce surviving copies. So when the first sexual bibbab becomes sexual, there are four bibbabs floating around that are theoretical sexual partners. However, none of these bibbabs have gone sexual yet, so the bibbab foregoes a cycle of reproduction. In the final year of its life, the initial bibbab is able to find a sexual partner, that is to say, it's asexual offspring from the first year. So all the genetic combination and recombination results basically in recombining two genomes that are 99.999% the same. In the fourth, and last cycle, of the original bibbab's life, it produces one offspring through sexual reproduction whereas had it stuck to asexual reproduction, it would have done better because in cycle 3, it would have reproduced asexually (but did not) whereas in cycle 4, both it and its direct offspring would have reproduced asexually (producing 2 offspring) whereas in fact, together they produced merely one sexual offspring.

So you require me to believe that this inefficient system survived long enough for additional mutations to convert said system into a system in which the sexual genes turn on and off depending on the situation in the environment that made them beneficial or not?

Excuse me for being blunt, but do you take me for a fool?

Your scenario makes no sense.

There will be millions of asexually reproducing bibabs in the initial lake representing a huge variation in gene types since they have been asexually reproducing for thousands of generations. Then, one of these bibabs will develop a Mutation that would cause a few of its asexual offsprings to switch to sexual reproduction. These few offsprings, instead of just dividing, will, upon contact with another distinct strain of as yet asexual bibabs, coalesce with it and start a meiosis reproduction where it shares DNA with this distinct strain. Thus now these two distinct strain hosting different Mutation heritages become fused, creating a set of novel offsprings. These may be partly asexual and partly sexual. In this way, DNA information gets exchanged through sex between lineages of asexual strain of the same organism. In times of stress, these more genetically richer sexual offsprings gain an advantage over isolationist asexual offsprings and get positively selected for. Thus sexual reproduction strategy spreads.


More details as to how,
Origin and function of meiosis - Wikipedia

 

[sayak83]

what is junk DNA and why it exists?

Much of junk DNA are infections caused by DNA and RNA viruses that attach themselves to the host gene and fool the DNA into copying them.

 

[sayak83]

That is not the scientific method as defined by scientists.

No I am not wrong.

Observation - Wikipedia

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses.[1] It consists of these steps:[2][3]

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting logical, observable consequences of the hypothesis that have not yet been investigated
5. Testing the hypothesis’ predictions by an experiment, observational study, field study, or simulation
6. Forming a conclusion from data gathered in the experiment, or making a revised/new hypothesis and repeating the process
7. Writing out a description of the method of observation and the results or conclusions reached
8. Review of the results by peers with experience researching the same phenomenon

Not only experiment but also observational study, field study and simulation results are included as valid means to test hypothesis.

 

[sayak83]

Could it be said that an instinctual or intrinsic base of knowledge in an animal (instinct) is a physical adaptation of memory cells that come pre-built within the brain? And could it be said that this is not much different than the gestational growth/development of any other physical attribute (like bone size/location, tendon positioning and connection, physicalities of ocular instrumentation, etc. etc. etc.)

For example Bolas Spiders who know that their means of catching prey must involve coating a strand of web in a pseudo-moth-pheromone they produce, despite never having even come in contact with a parent spider. Is this simply a portion of the brain that grows with that information "pre-programmed" into it, or is the mechanism by which instinct is synthesized much different than that?

Much of that information is preset in the brain cells.

 

[sayak83]

Do you think GMO foods are safe and if so, why?

Here's what my evolution website states:
"Genetic engineering vs. evolution
April 2014

The western corn rootworm chews into a plant.

In the late 1990s, a new weapon in the fight against agricultural pests was introduced: Bt corn. The new maize variety was genetically engineered to carry genes from the bacterium Bacillus thurinigiensis (hence the moniker "Bt") that cause the crop to produce an all-natural pesticide. This meant that growers could get good yields from their cornfields without spraying on so many toxins. Since then, many farmers have jumped on this bandwagon. In 2012, more than 69 million hectares were planted with Bt crops — an area about the size of Texas! There has been much debate over the risks of this technological advance, but now it appears that the downfall of Bt corn might be the very problem that it was supposed to solve in the first place: agricultural pests, in particular the western corn rootworm. These beetle larvae eat the roots of corn plants potentially ruining the crop. In recent years, more and more larvae that are resistant to the effects of the Bt toxin have been showing up in fields and chewing their way into plants. How and why did this happen? It all comes down to evolution."

Genetic engineering vs. evolution

I am agnostic about this. It's not gmo per se, but monoculture where a single varietal is being grown everywhere that makes it so vulnerable to parasite. Genetic variability needs to be maintained to prevent such things.

 

[Quintessence]

I am agnostic about this. It's not gmo per se, but monoculture where a single varietal is being grown everywhere that makes it so vulnerable to parasite. Genetic variability needs to be maintained to prevent such things.

The industry plans for this somewhat by crossing varieties with other stock to introduce more variability. In the United States at least, there are several seed vaults across the country run by the USDA that keep stocks of thousands of varieties of crops. These can be requested by seed companies to use in crossing/breeding of new varieties and keep the variability up.

 

[sayak83]

The industry plans for this somewhat by crossing varieties with other stock to introduce more variability. In the United States at least, there are several seed vaults across the country run by the USDA that keep stocks of thousands of varieties of crops. These can be requested by seed companies to use in crossing/breeding of new varieties and keep the variability up.

I still think it's essential to increase the use of native mesoamerican corn varieties still used among indigenous people in Central America to guard against rapid die offs in the future.

 

[David T]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away

Since a dog is an evolutionist stating the obvious as meaningful seems interesting. I found the opening statement "mechanism" a curiously Newtonian statement. The statement makes evolution appear to be something clearly identified compartmentalized defined and thus full understood as an action upon life. There is zero empirical evidence of evolution somehow being independent from what is observered. That's a fact, so the term mechanism is a faux intellectualism of evolution itself and is not evolution itself. It's an intellectualized construct. Life interconnected is old old old not new so the discussion is cultural not reality. Oh just like the 1700,s when science believed that there was a great flood and water was the force that drove land formations geologically. That's European science and that is a fact as well.

Now my attack on horrid euro/ American mechanicalism called science, will be fantasized as an attack on science. Very much the opposite. I actually pre majored to be a marine biologist. I can't stand creationism nor intelligent design it's faux science it's cultural.

 

[Audie]

how do you know these animals are not just relatives, variation within a kind of animal?

A good hint is that they appear in chronological sequence

 

[sealchan]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away

Are you famiiar with Gerald Edelman's book Topobiology? Are his ideas accepted as part of the overall view of evolution?

Are you familiar with Stuart Kauffman? Do you see his ideas helpful to a further development of evolutionary science, particularly in the area of abiogenesis?

Thanks!

 

[Audie]

There is zero empirical evidence of evolution somehow being independent from what is observered.

. Oh just like the 1700,s when science believed that there was a great flood and water was the force that drove land formations geologically. That's European science and that is a fact as well.

Now my attack on horrid euro/ American mechanicalism called science, will be fantasized as an attack on science.

Your first sentence about zero evidence has me puzzled. Observation is kind of important in science.
But I dont understand what the sentence means. Prease exprain?

For centuries, people (because of the bible) thought there had been a flood.

Science really did not exist in anything resembling its modern form back in 1700.

A fellow name of Hutton I believe, went out studying
geology in scotland, thinking it was flood-stuff, and realized it could not possibly be.

I see a bit of fantasy in your description of "horrid, Am / Euro mechanicalized.." but withal would agree that Chinese science is much better.

In China you can hardly find someone backward enough to be a creationist.

 

[sayak83]

Are you famiiar with Gerald Edelman's book Topobiology? Are his ideas accepted as part of the overall view of evolution?

Are you familiar with Stuart Kauffman? Do you see his ideas helpful to a further development of evolutionary science, particularly in the area of abiogenesis?

Thanks!

I have not read topobiology.
I am aware of Kauffman's ideas, but I haven't seen any concrete advances towards attempting to test it for two decades now. In contrast other ideas like in metabolism and RNA hypothesis in pools or hydrothermal vents have met with much greater success.

 

[sayak83]

Since a dog is an evolutionist stating the obvious as meaningful seems interesting. I found the opening statement "mechanism" a curiously Newtonian statement. The statement makes evolution appear to be something clearly identified compartmentalized defined and thus full understood as an action upon life. There is zero empirical evidence of evolution somehow being independent from what is observered. That's a fact, so the term mechanism is a faux intellectualism of evolution itself and is not evolution itself. It's an intellectualized construct. Life interconnected is old old old not new so the discussion is cultural not reality. Oh just like the 1700,s when science believed that there was a great flood and water was the force that drove land formations geologically. That's European science and that is a fact as well.

Now my attack on horrid euro/ American mechanicalism called science, will be fantasized as an attack on science. Very much the opposite. I actually pre majored to be a marine biologist. I can't stand creationism nor intelligent design it's faux science it's cultural.

View attachment 20782

You are making too much on my use of the word mechanism. I was avoiding the word theory to get out of the silly "only a theory" rabbit hole.

 

[bobhikes]

What makes you say that? I am pretty sure that you lack an understanding of the method.

Not at all look up scientific method.

Evolution is and always will be scientific consensus because there are to many variables, there is no way to test it scientifically. We can only observe and make probable guesses.

Lets take a bird on an isolated island that developed a beak for a specific bug. The beak made the bird so efficient that the bug is extinct. Scientists find the island 1000's of years after the bug went extinct and there is no reason to assume the bug was ever there. How could it be determined how the bird got its beak. There will be books explaining it but none of them would be right of course none of them could be proven wrong unless you have a time machine. That is evolution in a nutshell. The bird did evolve because they are different but we don't know why and can't prove it. We only can see the results, in science you need proof.

 

[David T]

Your first sentence about zero evidence has me puzzled. Observation is kind of important in science.
But I dont understand what the sentence means. Prease exprain?

For centuries, people (because of the bible) thought there had been a flood.

Science really did not exist in anything resembling its modern form back in 1700.

A fellow name of Hutton I believe, went out studying
geology in scotland, thinking it was flood-stuff, and realized it could not possibly be.

I see a bit of fantasy in your description of "horrid, Am / Euro mechanicalized.." but withal would agree that Chinese science is much better.

In China you can hardly find someone backward enough to be a creationist.

You seemed to have missed the word independence from.

 

[bobhikes]

No I am not wrong.

Observation - Wikipedia

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses.[1] It consists of these steps:[2][3]

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting logical, observable consequences of the hypothesis that have not yet been investigated
5. Testing the hypothesis’ predictions by an experiment, observational study, field study, or simulation
6. Forming a conclusion from data gathered in the experiment, or making a revised/new hypothesis and repeating the process
7. Writing out a description of the method of observation and the results or conclusions reached
8. Review of the results by peers with experience researching the same phenomenon

Not only experiment but also observational study, field study and simulation results are included as valid means to test hypothesis.

Produce a test that verifies evolution. It would probably best be an observational study or field study. Evolution can not be proven it is agreed upon scientific consensus.

See below.

Evolution is and always will be scientific consensus because there are to many variables, there is no way to test it scientifically. We can only observe and make probable guesses.

Lets take a bird on an isolated island that developed a beak for a specific bug. The beak made the bird so efficient that the bug is extinct. Scientists find the island 1000's of years after the bug went extinct and there is no reason to assume the bug was ever there. How could it be determined how the bird got its beak. There will be books explaining it but none of them would be right of course none of them could be proven wrong unless you have a time machine. That is evolution in a nutshell. The bird did evolve because they are different from other birds but we don't know why and can't prove why. We only can see the results, in science you need proof.

 

[Audie]

[QAhUOTE="David T, post: 5543942, member: 31195"]You seemed to have missed the word independence from.[/QUOTE]

Ah. Still better than you missing the boat.

 

[Audie]

Not at all look up scientific method.

Evolution is and always will be scientific consensus because there are to many variables, there is no way to test it scientifically. We can only observe and make probable guesses.

Lets take a bird on an isolated island that developed a beak for a specific bug. The beak made the bird so efficient that the bug is extinct. Scientists find the island 1000's of years after the bug went extinct and there is no reason to assume the bug was ever there. How could it be determined how the bird got its beak. There will be books explaining it but none of them would be right of course none of them could be proven wrong unless you have a time machine. That is evolution in a nutshell. The bird did evolve because they are different but we don't know why and can't prove it. We only can see the results, in science you need proof.

Dear me. In science, there is no such thing as proof.

Total misunderstanding of the basics!

That, one might say, is creationism in a nutshell.