Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

No, you have presented a lot of assertions some of which are patently absurd such as odd-ball genes which grossly misinterprets the well established and demonstrated concept of alleles.

...Another word game. You simply change the word "gene" to "alleles" like this makes me wrong.

 

[cladking]

The only point is that the bottlenecked remainder has a genetic variability that is significantly less than the prior total.
As a result they are more homogeneous.

Well, at least you addressed the point. Thank you.

You are assuming that what is killing the species is something that we are familiar with like hunting or disease. Such things are pretty likely to leave a random cross section of genes. If the species survive these random genes will just increase their numbers not cause speciation. I am talking about an event that eradicates selected types of individuals and these types are typical for the species. If the survivors have 8unusual genes wgich led to their survival their off spring will be different than the species had been. This is just common sense. And it is the same common sense that termites used to invent agriculture. It is the common sense that underlies nature and how species change.

Darwin was wrong and suffered dunning krueger just like even Dunning and Krueger.

 

[Pogo]

...Another word game. You simply change the word "gene" to "alleles" like this makes me wrong.

It does demonstrate your lack of understanding of the concept dating back to Gregor Mendel, whether that makes you wrong is an interesting question.

 

[cladking]

Phd's are the most fun to talk to because if you present something, they often talk through their logic as they consider and answer you.

Only so long as your question implies you agree with their assumptions. Otherwise you get lectures, insults, and word games. You'll get ignored a lot. People have a very hard time dealing with what they perceive as "attacks" on their premises.

I can talk about mine because I remember not only their adoption but the order in which they were adopted. I really don't mind. Some I can't defend at all and I'll say so if you ask but i believe they all make sense in reality as I understand it.

 

[cladking]

It does demonstrate your lack of understanding of the concept dating back to Gregor Mendel, whether that makes you wrong is an interesting question.

My ignorance is nearly complete but is irrelevant.

 

[cladking]

I simply use the word "genes" as the building blocks of living things. We are each a product of our genes and our consciousness, or in the case of humans, our beliefs.

 

[Pogo]

...Another word game. You simply change the word "gene" to "alleles" like this makes me wrong.

As we have been trying to explain, words have meanings and communication is only possible when we can mutually agree on them.
You have demonstrated a large disconnect between what is commonly understood by many words and how they are used in scientific circles.
Some of this was made more understandable though less confusing by understanding that you are speaking from a point of some sort of Platonism and not using the vocabulary that we use when discussing science which is the topic of this thread.

This is not a game, it is a question of agreeing on the rules of definitions and their areas of applicability.

There do not appear to be any Tagalog speakers here nor any who speak your particular dialect of english, I'm afraid you will need to speak ours if you wish to be understood.

 

[Pogo]

Well, at least you addressed the point. Thank you.

You are assuming that what is killing the species is something that we are familiar with like hunting or disease. Such things are pretty likely to leave a random cross section of genes. If the species survive these random genes will just increase their numbers not cause speciation. I am talking about an event that eradicates selected types of individuals and these types are typical for the species. If the survivors have 8unusual genes wgich led to their survival their off spring will be different than the species had been. This is just common sense. And it is the same common sense that termites used to invent agriculture. It is the common sense that underlies nature and how species change.

Darwin was wrong and suffered dunning krueger just like even Dunning and Krueger.

Here is an example of little brown bats passing through a bottle neck, the ones that are reqrowing the population have SNPs not seen regularly in the basic prior population. This is just basic evolution and no species change is involved just a change in allele frequency in a population.

Here's some information about white-nose syndrome (WNS) and bat immunity:

• Bats are developing resistance
  Some research suggests that little brown bats may be developing resistance to WNS. For example, at some hibernation sites in New York, populations have increased by 5–30% from previous lows. Whole genome sequencing also identified 63 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are more common in WNS survivors.
  
• Bats in Europe may have natural immunity
  Bats that hibernate in infected European caves don't seem to be affected by WNS, suggesting they may have natural immunity.
  
• Evolution may be helping bats survive
  Bats that survived WNS may have evolved genes that help them gain weight before hibernation and behave differently during hibernation.
  
• Antibodies may provide protection
  One study found that bats with higher antibody titers against the fungus that causes WNS had lower infection intensity.
  
• Vaccines and drugs may help
  A blastomycosis vaccine may stimulate cellular immunity in bats and protect against WNS. A drug called gefitinib, which is used to treat certain lung cancers in humans, may also be able to treat or prevent WNS in bats.
  

WNS is caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans, which colonizes the bat's skin. There's no known treatment or way to prevent transmission. Some species have declined by more than 90% within five years of the disease reaching a site.

This is a pop-sci analysis, but basically correct.

As for D-K, your response indicates that you misunderstand that as well.

 

[Pogo]

Only so long as your question implies you agree with their assumptions. Otherwise you get lectures, insults, and word games. You'll get ignored a lot. People have a very hard time dealing with what they perceive as "attacks" on their premises.

I can talk about mine because I remember not only their adoption but the order in which they were adopted. I really don't mind. Some I can't defend at all and I'll say so if you ask but i believe they all make sense in reality as I understand it.

Here we have the difference, first it is not an adversarial engagement of premises, but and understanding that the one with the most defensible premises carries the day,

You on the other hand seem to have adopted a set that make sense to you but seem unwilling to question them. Unfortunately you see disagreement as an attack rather than a source of information to update them.

 

[cladking]

This is not a game, it is a question of agreeing on the rules of definitions and their areas of applicability.

Again, I am using the first definition of "metaphysics" correctly and the ONLY scientific definition of "bottleneck" correctly.

If you're angling for a place on my ignore list it's easily done.

I'm sorry you don't agree my opinions but if you won't agree with the dictionary definitions AND my stated definitions of words there is no point continuing. Do you also have a problem with my definition of the word "genes" or would you like me to copy and paste the dictionary definition for you?

I do not play word games and I hate to see others do it so the ignore list is a Godsend.

 

[cladking]

Bats that survived WNS may have evolved genes that help them gain weight before hibernation and behave differently during hibernation.

But when I say individuals adapt I'm called an ignorant idiot.

 

[cladking]

As for D-K, your response indicates that you misunderstand that as well.

As I explained and you wholly ignore Dunning and Krueger had D/K. Why not address the points? Why not tell me what you think causes traffic jams on every perfectly good road in Illinois. In Illinois even cops tailgate and allow to be tailgated. They only write ticket for speeding and not slamming on your brakes. It's OK to hit a baby in a stroller so long as you slam on your brakes first. So they tailgate and slam on their brakes a lot. Unsurprisingly this results in lots of accidents and traffic jams. And 90% of the drivers in IL really are better than average.

And every stop sign in IL is a contest to see who can stop longest. They'll actually wait for stop signs to turn green.

They are great drivers, just ask them.

 

[cladking]

This is a pop-sci analysis, but basically correct.

As I said; disease and hunting do not usually select for unusual behavior. They can but typically probably. Disease will select individuals who did or did not survive some local bottleneck or it might be wholly irrelevant. When individuals are ignored we can't even see the causes of "evolution" because most change results from behavior which is largely genetic.

 

[cladking]

Bats that survived WNS may have evolved genes that help them gain weight before hibernation and behave differently during hibernation.

What people are missing by not looking at or defining consciousness is that behavior is derived largely from genes. Each individual sees only what it understands. It proceeds on what it knows not what it believes. This allows it to adapt its behavior to match the conditions. Meanwhile stressors that wipe out large percentages of the population allow the propagation of only genes consistent with living meaning the "species" quickly adapts as well. One wouldn't expect speciation as the result of WNS, only a new population much more resistant to the condition.

Now if the only bats that survived were those which didn't hibernate upside down then we would see a new species suddenly arise within a single human lifetime.

Nature plays tricks on all her creatures and must be having a blast with humans and complex symbolic language.

 

[Pogo]

Again, I am using the first definition of "metaphysics" correctly and the ONLY scientific definition of "bottleneck" correctly.

OK, you got bottle neck correct, but evolution is a subset of Metaphysical naturalism, not Metaphysics in general and thus not every idea from the latter applies to the former.

If you're angling for a place on my ignore list it's easily done.

Up to you, I only have one person there who doesn't even seem to understand why her posts might not be relevant to a given conversation.

I'm sorry you don't agree my opinions but if you won't agree with the dictionary definitions AND my stated definitions of words there is no point continuing. Do you also have a problem with my definition of the word "genes" or would you like me to copy and paste the dictionary definition for you?

I don't know what your definition of a gene is, but your comments indicate a lack of understanding of the current state of knowledge in that much of what you are describing is not specifically the province of the gene but the allele of one or many genes. Ex. skin color is the product of many genes, but we all have the same genes for skin color, but not the same alleles and it is the interaction of those alleles inherited from both parents that determines skin color. This is knowledge that has built on understandings during the last 50 years that while common now was not common then.

I do not play word games and I hate to see others do it so the ignore list is a Godsend.

You may not be playing word games, but your use of words is out of sync with the understanding of many words as used in biology today. Definitions from the past or outside fields are often not understood by modern speakers similar to the way Shakespearian English is often marginally intelligible to modern speakers.l

There are those here who are just plain wrong or just in denial of reality, you seem to present a special case where communication is hindered by a lack of a common language/understanding. To that extent I suggest this introductory reading to help you understand some of the terms and concepts involved in inheritance and speciation.

Allele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[cladking]

They are great drivers, just ask them.

They'll lecture you on how Indiana drivers don't stop at stop signs which confuses them and don't like to be tailgated. They're right but we also don't like our baby strollers wiped out at any speed.

 

[cladking]

I don't know what your definition of a gene is

I JUST POSTED IT FOR YOU SPECIFICALLY!!!!!

It's on this very page!!!!!

#2046.

 

[Pogo]

But when I say individuals adapt I'm called an ignorant idiot.

because adaptation and evolution are two separate things.
Short answer is adaptation is that which is already provided for in your genome,
changes in adaptability however require changes in the genome though both fall into evolution.

 

[cladking]

You may not be playing word games, but your use of words is out of sync with the understanding of many words as used in biology today. Definitions from the past or outside fields are often not understood by modern speakers similar to the way Shakespearian English is often marginally intelligible to modern speakers.l

I understand this and have no problem with it.

I do not think like most scientists or metaphysicians so can be hard to understand. Sometimes I think I should quit saying exactly what I mean and aim more to be understood but I'm always taken to task for semantics when I try it. Since I don't think like you it's very hard to talk like you and rarely try. I only mean what I say and I try to be accurate and comprehensive. It's like a scientist would sound if he agreed with me but none do.

 

[cladking]

because adaptation and evolution are two separate things.
Short answer is adaptation is that which is already provided for in your genome,
changes in adaptability however require changes in the genome though both fall into evolution.

I might not be using the word "adaptation" quite like you do. I mean "very fast evolution" but don't forget, I believe most change in species is rapid and not dependent on fitness.

"Adaptation" is caused by a stressor that kills many individuals with a simple characteristic such as coloration or length of beak. Nature attends very quickly to some stressors.