Evolution: ask your questions here

[painted wolf]

Why does our intellect interfere with the evolutionary process but other species intellect does not.

Our intellect doesn't interfere with evolution. We are still evolving.

Why do some species use cooperative evolution yet we do not we use artificial evolution(selective breeding) as in Dogs and such.

I'm not sure what you mean?
We have evolved in cooperation with a lot of organisms, especially our symbiotic gut critters.

Why can't changes survive that aren't necessarily beneficial for the species for example genes for the color purple in eyes, feathers or such and even possible changes detrimental to the species as in Large breasted women.

There are changes that "survive" that are not beneficial and even potentially detrimental. Blue eyes for example are the result of a single mutation that isn't beneficial but has spread anyway.

Why is it not possible to have species developement by species intellect

I'm not sure what you mean here?

Why is it not possible to have species developement by species emotional intellect.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean?
Animals that are social definitely influence the overall evolution of their groups.

Please be civil and honest in your responce. These are my honest questions.

Sorry I wasn't able to help more...

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Why does our intellect interfere with the evolutionary process but other species intellect does not.

Why do some species use cooperative evolution yet we do not we use artificial evolution(selective breeding) as in Dogs and such.

Why can't changes survive that aren't necessarily beneficial for the species for example genes for the color purple in eyes, feathers or such and even possible changes detrimental to the species as in Large breasted women.

Why is it not possible to have species developement by species intellect
Why is it not possible to have species developement by species emotional intellect.

Please be civil and honest in your responce. These are my honest questions.

“Artificial” is a term that is reserved for the handiwork of humankind. But this is probably just another example of the arrogance of our species. The work of a human building a house is not considered part of nature, but a bird building a nest, or a colony of bees building a hive is considered natural. When humans select and breed animals this is called artificial selection, but insects also selectively pollinate flowers, this is called natural selection.

Another example might be the initial domestication of the dog. It is quite probable that the domestication of the dog was not initiated by humans, but in the beginning initiated by the dog (or wolf). Some of these animals chose to be close to humans, and this decision isolated their breeding population and lead to other genetic and morphological changes.

There is no question in my mind that the intellect and emotion of animals has an impact on their evolution. But we call this natural, as I think we should. But I think we should also call the actions of humanity natural as well. It is all natural, whether it comes from the intellect (any intellect) or not.

 

[bobhikes]

Thank, nice to discuss, see responses and not be criticized. Even some thoughts very close to my own.

 

[Alceste]

One response said all of biology is Darwinism. Another said Darwinism has little to do with biology. One response suggested there's A LOT of differences between what once was and the modern theory. One said there's not much difference because the modern theory is similar to the past and doesn't change.

That's the trouble with the essentially meaningless terminology embraced by creationists. Using words like "Darwinism", "kinds" and "micro-evolution" - none of which are used outside creationist circles - makes it very difficult to get a straight-forward answer from people who know anything at all about evolutionary biology. The difference between Auto and PW's posts doesn't indicate there is disagreement within the mainstream, only that each of them - in the process of trying to figure out what on earth you're talking about - came to a different conclusion.

To be clear, the work of Darwin laid the foundation for modern biology. Because his work catalyzed a major paradigm shift in the study of nature, our modern understanding of life's diversity can be said to be infused with Darwin's ideas. However, much has been learned since Darwin's day, and the literature, arguments and evidence you would be exposed to if you enrolled in a biology program - or even picked up a layman's book on the subject - differs somewhat from that found in On the Origin of Species.

There have been many revelations in science since Darwin wrote his book (it's been a hundred and fifty years, after all). He didn't know about DNA, for example. He didn't know the earth was several billion years old. He didn't know about mass extinctions or the Cambrian explosion, or antibiotics, or radioactive isotopes, or geological layering, or plate tectonics. (On the other hand, his theory did predict both DNA and a lengthy geologic time frame - that is one of the many ways we can conclude he was on the right track.)

 

[David M]

That's the trouble with the essentially meaningless terminology embraced by creationists. Using words like "Darwinism", "kinds" and "micro-evolution" - none of which are used outside creationist circles - makes it very difficult to get a straight-forward answer from people who know anything at all about evolutionary biology. The difference between Auto and PW's posts doesn't indicate there is disagreement within the mainstream, only that each of them - in the process of trying to figure out what on earth you're talking about - came to a different conclusion.

Precisely.

The Theory of Evolution is "Darwinist" in the sense that it grew out of Darwin's original work on the subject and includes the parts of his work that were found to be valid. It is not "Darwinist" or "Darwinism" in any sense that implies an adherence to only Darwin's original theory or that the modern ToE is still only what Darwin put forth in the Origin of Species, this latter usage (usually by creationists) implies more of an ideology rather than an acknowledgement of the contribution (however important) of one among many scientists.

 

[Alceste]

Why does our intellect interfere with the evolutionary process but other species intellect does not.

It doesn't. We tinker a little, sure, but animal husbandry does not "interfere" with evolution. In fact, it would not be possible without evolution. There's nothing we can accomplish by segregating animal populations (aka "selective breeding") that nature could not also accomplish with natural barriers (seas, rivers, lakes, mountains, islands, ecosystems, etc).

Why do some species use cooperative evolution yet we do not we use artificial evolution(selective breeding) as in Dogs and such.

Not sure what you mean - what is "cooperative evolution" and how do you "use" it?

Why can't changes survive that aren't necessarily beneficial for the species for example genes for the color purple in eyes, feathers or such and even possible changes detrimental to the species as in Large breasted women.

They can survive. Not every mutation confers and advantage or a disadvantage. Many (if not most) are neutral. Evolution only impacts mutations which confer some kind of measurable benefit or disadvantage to survival and reproduction. (I don't think anyone would argue that large-breasted women suffer from a reproductive disadvantage regardless of how sore their backs might get.)

Why is it not possible to have species developement by species intellect
Why is it not possible to have species developement by species emotional intellect.

Many of your questions seem to imply you believe evolution has some sort of "goal" besides survival and reproduction. We are not "developing" toward some imagined perfect form. Each successive generation is very gradually adapting to our surroundings, which are constantly changing. Nevertheless, even if we did want to "evolve" in a particular direction, a single lifetime / single intellect / single heartfelt desire would not suffice. For the most part, measurable change only occurs over many hundreds of generations.

Please be civil and honest in your responce. These are my honest questions.

I can be civil.

 

[David M]

They can survive. Not every mutation confers and advantage or a disadvantage. Many (if not most) are neutral. Evolution only impacts mutations which confer some kind of measurable benefit or disadvantage to survival and reproduction. (I don't think anyone would argue that large-breasted women suffer from a reproductive disadvantage regardless of how sore their backs might get.)

Further to this there is a mechanism of evolution called genetic drift, this is where a mutation is not under selective pressure and just through the effects of random sampling neutral mutations at can become fixed in a population over time. The effect is greater in smaller populations than larger ones, there is a special case of genetic drit called the founder effect. Wiki has a good page on genetic drit and the founder effect.

Another factor is that mutations can be "linked" when they appear on the same chromosome, so a neutral mutation or even a harmful one can sometimes spread through a population because it is on the same chromosome as a beneficial mutation so that the overall effect of the pair of genes is beneficial.

 

[bobhikes]

Many of your questions seem to imply you believe evolution has some sort of "goal" besides survival and reproduction. We are not "developing" toward some imagined perfect form. Each successive generation is very gradually adapting to our surroundings, which are constantly changing. Nevertheless, even if we did want to "evolve" in a particular direction, a single lifetime / single intellect / single heartfelt desire would not suffice. For the most part, measurable change only occurs over many hundreds of generations.

.

Not a goal but just change. However I believe change can be caused by intellect of the species over many generations as well as emotion not just because they are beneficial to the species.

Emotion for me would be your basic, fear, sexual desire, happiness. We know these are all caused by internal workings of the bodies and they are not proportioned the same for all of us. A strong sexual desire could be passed down generation and generation and not because it was beneficial but because it produced the most offspring.

Intellect is harder to explain but I use more of a societal intellect, a species intellect not an individual. An individual would be hard pressed to introduce an evolutionary change but a species can very easily produce extinction. Ants choicing to use aphids like cattle instead of cooperative evolution. Ants selectivly breeding aphids.

 

[Alceste]

Not a goal but just change. However I believe change can be caused by intellect of the species over many generations as well as emotion not just because they are beneficial to the species.

Emotion for me would be your basic, fear, sexual desire, happiness. We know these are all caused by internal workings of the bodies and they are not proportioned the same for all of us. A strong sexual desire could be passed down generation and generation and not because it was beneficial but because it produced the most offspring.

Well, to the extent that emotions impact sexual behavior, you could certainly argue that they are a selection factor. Intellect is a harder sell, though. Nothing - including us - evolves in a purposeful manner.

Intellect is harder to explain but I use more of a societal intellect, a species intellect not an individual. An individual would be hard pressed to introduce an evolutionary change but a species can very easily produce extinction. Ants choicing to use aphids like cattle instead of cooperative evolution. Ants selectivly breeding aphids.

Well, I suppose you could say that humanity is indeed engaging in choices that are likely to result in population collapse, if not extinction, and that this self-destructive direction is largely intellect-driven. IOW, we seem to believe we can grow indefinitely, consuming more and more, for all eternity, making as much of a mess as we please and taking few steps if any to preserve or restore ecosystems our intellect has allowed us to destroy with incredible efficiency and thoroughness...

 

[painted wolf]

Not a goal but just change. However I believe change can be caused by intellect of the species over many generations as well as emotion not just because they are beneficial to the species.

Emotion for me would be your basic, fear, sexual desire, happiness. We know these are all caused by internal workings of the bodies and they are not proportioned the same for all of us. A strong sexual desire could be passed down generation and generation and not because it was beneficial but because it produced the most offspring.

Speaking evolutionarily, producing the most offspring is beneficial. All emotions are beneficial.

Intellect is harder to explain but I use more of a societal intellect, a species intellect not an individual. An individual would be hard pressed to introduce an evolutionary change but a species can very easily produce extinction. Ants choicing to use aphids like cattle instead of cooperative evolution. Ants selectivly breeding aphids.

Just a quick note.... Ants don't selectively breed aphids. This would be impossible as aphids are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. There is no way to control breeding in aphids. Some are even born already pregnant.
Ants and aphids are cooperative, with aphids having just as much control of the ants and they ants have of the aphids.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Ever wonder what the Theory of Evolution really says? What evidence it's based on? How science knows it's correct? What its implications are? Ask your questions here, and the knowledgeable members will try to answer them.

Or better still read some modern popular science books on the subject...the information is likely to be more accurate.

The Blind Watchmaker - Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale - Richard Dawkins


Or visit... Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and click the links...

 

[Truth`]

Thousands of further stages are needed in order to progress from a protein to a cell. Above all, any protein that happens to form by claim that the cell came into being by chance is as illogical as claiming that all the buildings, roads, transport systems, water and electricity in New York City emerged thanks to the effects of random natural phenomena such as storms and earthquakes.

The evolutionists also claim that the transition from one species to another takes place from the simple to the more complex and in stages.

That means that transitional forms must have existed during the progress from one species to another. Jet, there is still not the slightest trace of such intermediate forms. Like half-fish or half-bird forms.

So how come that evolutionists believe in such a theory while there isn't any credible proof?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Clearly you need to read some books...half fish...LOL

Try the ones I cite..you may understand that your thinking is utterly bizarre...if you read them.

 

[Truth`]

Clearly you need to read some books...half fish...LOL

For example, there must have existed half-fish and half-amphibian creatures that, despite still having fish characteristics, had also acquired some amphibious
ones. If any such transitional species had really existed, then their remains should be encountered in the fossil record.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

For example, there must have existed half-fish and half-amphibian creatures that, despite still having fish characteristics, had also acquired some amphibious
ones. If any such transitional species had really existed, then their remains should be encountered in the fossil record.

Oh you mean lungfish and their ancestors?

The Ancestors Tale has lots of information about such fish...

 

[RedOne77]

For example, there must have existed half-fish and half-amphibian creatures that, despite still having fish characteristics, had also acquired some amphibious
ones. If any such transitional species had really existed, then their remains should be encountered in the fossil record.

Like Tiktaalik? Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[painted wolf]

I love fishapods! :woohoo:

Acanthostega is another great one... still has gills and scales like a fish, but very definately on the way to being a true amphibian with lungs and legs and too many toes.

wa:do

 

[David M]

For example, there must have existed half-fish and half-amphibian creatures that, despite still having fish characteristics, had also acquired some amphibious
ones. If any such transitional species had really existed, then their remains should be encountered in the fossil record.

Oh, this one was a mistake. Ater all we only have 9 Genera of devonian early tetrapods

To Tiktaalik I will add:

Acanthostega - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Panderichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ichthyostega - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We can do the same for "half-birds" if you want, lots of those have been found now.

 

[outhouse]

Thousands of further stages are needed in order to progress from a protein to a cell. Above all, any protein that happens to form by claim that the cell came into being by chance is as illogical as claiming that all the buildings, roads, transport systems, water and electricity in New York City emerged thanks to the effects of random natural phenomena such as storms and earthquakes.

The evolutionists also claim that the transition from one species to another takes place from the simple to the more complex and in stages.

That means that transitional forms must have existed during the progress from one species to another. Jet, there is still not the slightest trace of such intermediate forms. Like half-fish or half-bird forms.

So how come that evolutionists believe in such a theory while there isn't any credible proof?

this false belief is only because of your lack of education

 

[RedOne77]

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but I found this and thought it might be useful. Fish to Amphibian Transition