Evolution is not random -here's why

[tas8831]

I would, but I don't know what a sequence data is.

So your use of the word "mutation" is rather pedestrian.then. You are arguing well above your 'pay grade.'

Also, who's the "us" that you're speaking for?

The people in this thread that have science backgrounds.

 

[tas8831]

that would be ....one....generation

Um.... no... evolution.... works.... at the..... population.... level... A new mutation.... does .... not.... spread throughout..... a .... population
in
one
generation

 

[tas8831]

But it isn't "the same mutation". It's a similar feature.

It seems to me that this fellow in conflating 'mutation' at the genome level with 'mutation' as defined centuries ago (a change). He is talking apples but implying that he knows all about oranges.

 

[Thief]

Um.... no... evolution.... works.... at the..... population.... level... A new mutation.... does .... not.... spread throughout..... a .... population
in
one
generation

duh......
the mutant has to reproduce to the next generation

there has to be......one......to start with

 

[tas8831]

...There's just some things weird about life. Like the fact that we beat all odds. All the time.

No, only the ones that are still around beat the odds.
Estimates are in the range of 99.9% of all living groups of living things that have ever lived have gone extinct, so it would see, that a very small number of 'we' beating the odds.

 

[tas8831]

duh......
the mutant has to reproduce to the next generation

there has to be......one......to start with

duh

but...
the population....

does not

change.... in

one... generation

duh

a single organism with a new

trait

is not...... evolution

 

[tas8831]

But the same mutation! Over and over again until a tiny flap becomes huge.

So you are using 'mutation' in the way lay folk from the 1400s would use it.... not the way we use it in modern day biology.

Have you ever taken a genetics or developmental biology class (obviously not, but thought I'd ask)?

 

[Thief]

duh

but...
the population....

does not

change.... in

one... generation

duh

a single organism with a new

trait

is not...... evolution

someone has to be first

 

[Thief]

so.....the first mutant survives
he then has offspring
they have offspring
and several generations later the change becomes obvious
because of the numerous copies

but someone had to be first

 

[tas8831]

someone has to be first

And if that someone dies?
Sorry, but evolution is a populational phenomenon. Individuals with unique traits are irrelevant if their new alleles are not passed on.
You can keep writing it as often as you want, but you will still be wrong.

 

[Thief]

And if that someone dies?
Sorry, but evolution is a populational phenomenon. Individuals with unique traits are irrelevant if their new alleles are not passed on.
You can keep writing it as often as you want, but you will still be wrong.

a new trait is specific
not likely to form in multiple specimens given a single event....

many might survive the event
but not develop a resistance at the dna level

so the next occurrence will do as it did before.....and many will die

the mutant and his offspring will be immune
their numbers will increase at the next cycle

it will always remain
someone had to be first

 

[tas8831]

@tas8831, do you not find convergence in biology to be interesting?

Of course. I find many things in evolutionary biology interesting, that is why I became a biologist. And perhaps because I spent around 10 years in college learning the basics and 20 years so far applying that knowledge, I understand the distinction between 'interesting' and 'impossible.'

But with multiple animals evolving 'similar' traits, we now see multiple similar mutations where a small flap becomes a full blown patagium...

No, we do not. The wings of insects and the wings of birds are not premised on "similar mutations" as they are derived from totally different precursors.

If you don't see the amazingness of this, then that can only be because your senses have been dulled.

Or, perhaps because I have what I think is a pretty solid understanding of the histories and processes involved in such developments, and am well versed in the underlying mechanisms at the genetics level, my senses are just better tuned to actually understand these things and appreciate them for what they actually are, as opposed to having none of this understanding and seeing 'amazingness' and feeling awe at things I don't understand.

As far as my knowledge, it doesn't really matter in contrast to what I find interesting, because more knowledge seems to dull the imagination.

It seems pretty clear that less knowledge overwhelms people who then rely on their 'gut', and thus formulate opinions based on ignorance.

For instance, a modern actor playing a part from a 1960's film might refuse to watch that film and instead go straight back to the original book that the movie was founded on. That's to prevent muddying up the true intent of the character.

So you are trying to put your ignorance-based gut feelings on par with - actually, above - the conclusions of those that actually understand, for example, what a 'mutation' is in the context of biology?

I am forever shocked at the arrogance of ignorance put forth by religionists.

...In the same way, a fresh mind on a topic might be worth a little something at least.

A fresh mind that actually understands the science, sure.

Surgeon: This case looks tricky, I'd better go ask the local barista for his input!

 

[tas8831]

a new trait is specific
not likely to form in multiple specimens given a single event....

many might survive the event
but not develop a resistance at the dna level

so the next occurrence will do as it did before.....and many will die

the mutant and his offspring will be immune
their numbers will increase at the next cycle

it will always remain
someone had to be first

Like I said....

A pebble can start a landslide.
But if the pebble does NOT start a landslide...
No landslide.

Let us recall that you originally wrote:

What is impossible might be your inability to imagine the length of time it takes for evolution to occur.

that would be ....one....generation

 

[tas8831]

LOL, it seems like you do care, because you posted three times in a row.

Yes, I do care, because you are making unsupportable and absurd claims. I care not for the reasons I am implying, which should have been obvious - you have made several proclamations, none of which you seem able to support in any rational way, yet you present yourself as being correct. WHY should anyone think you are 'correct', i.e., care about your claims, when you cannot even pretend to be able to support your assertions?

 

[Jose Fly]

Not only that, but it sucks saber tooth tigers no longer exist. I would have loved to have seen an alive one!

Maybe in a zoo, but I'm not so sure about out in the wild.....

 

[viole]

...Because it's impossible that 6 or 7 different species developed "flight" independently and separate from one another.

View attachment 26008 View attachment 26009 View attachment 26010 View attachment 26011 View attachment 26012
View attachment 26013

Yes, exactly because natural selection is not random. We already know that, thanks.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

a new trait is specific
not likely to form in multiple specimens given a single event....

many might survive the event
but not develop a resistance at the dna level

so the next occurrence will do as it did before.....and many will die

the mutant and his offspring will be immune
their numbers will increase at the next cycle

it will always remain
someone had to be first

No, new traits tend to arise from old ones. Often the changes are so small that they are not very obvious. For example the movement of the nostrils in whales was a slow process of migration where at first it would have been just an organism with slightly higher nostrils that made it only a little easier to keep out water. The migration of the nostrils is shown by the fossil record.

The overnight appearance of new traits does not exist in the way that you seem to think that they do.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

...There's just some things weird about life. Like the fact that we beat all odds. All the time.

Most life doesn't beat the odds. Being a survivor, you are totally unaware of all those who failed to survive. for every fly that survives to lay hundreds of new eggs, there were hundreds or thousands who were born and did not live to reproduce.

Until the last few hundred years, only about one or two out of five humans born lived to adulthood and themselves reproduced.

 

[Cooky]

Most life doesn't beat the odds. Being a survivor, you are totally unaware of all those who failed to survive. for every fly that survives to lay hundreds of new eggs, there were hundreds or thousands who were born and did not live to reproduce.

Until the last few hundred years, only about one or two out of five humans born lived to adulthood and themselves reproduced.

Interesting stuff -how fortunate I am to be born of millions of generations of people and animals before me -all survivors just like me. And now here I am, 41 years old with 4 children of my own.

...And I'm not rejecting the responses I get here for the record. I'm just currently amazed by the flying squirrel and other forms of life, how they mutate etc. I don't really think anyone knows the odds of a slap of skin to mutate 1 millimeter. How many times that mutation occurred over and over until it became a full blown patagium.

And then the convergent evolution aside from that. Sorry, I'm just a little blown away by it all.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Interesting stuff -how fortunate I am to be born of millions of generations of people and animals before me -all survivors just like me. And now here I am, 41 years old with 4 children of my own.

...And I'm not rejecting the responses I get here for the record. I'm just currently amazed by the flying squirrel and other forms of life, how they mutate etc. I don't really think anyone knows the odds of a slap of skin to mutate 1 millimeter. How many times that mutation occurred over and over until it became a full blown patagium.

And then the convergent evolution aside from that. Sorry, I'm just a little blown away by it all.

Incidentally there is a wonderful new dinosaur discovered a couple years ago which has both leather wings and feathers, beak like snout with teeth, and an intermediary between lizard tailbone and avian tail feathers. Something we havent seen yet.

Like I said, it's not a matter of probability though. Even humans can develop webbed fingers and toes. But since we no longer rely on aquatic environments (and it's considered too strange to be popular) its weeded out by natural selection (including sexual selection). So the mutation is random but the selection isn't.