Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 201 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#10906 - 12/31/05 07:46 PM The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Planko Offline
Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Mars
Ok, this thread is the official,

Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution

thread.

A place to post your observations that give rise to questions as to why they don't seem to fit the Theory of Evolution.

Also a place for others to show that your observations actually do fit into the TOE.


I've had many of these, but unfortunately I've never written them down so they have passed from me like water down a drain. So please excuse this first submital to this thread:

Why is it female humans adorn themselves instead of male humans?:

It seems that female humans, as far as day to day adornments go, adorn themselves I'd say at least 100% more than male humans. Also, at least in "free" societies, they seemingly tend to highlight their sexual features much more than male humans. This seems backwards given that male humans are the ones that are supposedly more sexually driven (thinking about sex on average every 24 seconds and all that jazz). It seems given that, that it would be male humans that would adorn themselves more to attract the opposite sex. This seems to be the case in other classes of the animal kingdom where males are more richly adorned in order to attract a female. What gives?


Again, I apologize for the rather poor first submittal, but let's hear your replies and your own submittals.

Top
.
#10907 - 01/01/06 01:14 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Dogrock Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 92
Loc: Ireland
Men adorn themselves with the things they believe attract females, i.e. power, wealth. Personality traits are sometimes aggressive to achieve these ends. Women adorn themselves with "flowers" and personality traits are often compliant. However all that is changing as men and women are reversing roles and so it is that men are now starting to wear the "flowers" and women the dark power suits. Men do whatever will enhance their changes of procreation, women do whatever will give them the "best" offspring. But I think evolution is so long and winding that applying it to a local time or place is not always wise.

Top
#10908 - 01/01/06 11:39 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
I have no issues with common descent etc.

I am, however, interested in the idea of Irreducible Complexity. The tail of the flagellate, for example, beats at 50 strokes per second and consists of a tail and a complex motor, none of which would seem to work independently. What is the mechanism by which this evolves?

Ants mandibles are another. I took the following from a website:

"So at first some ant-like creature evolved some kind of structure that didn't work, unless you want to believe that the mandibles were created full blown at the first try, on the very first genetic mutation. Thus there had to have been a lot of mistakes, creatures evolving other things rather than mandibles - you know, trial and error - perhaps an extra set of legs through mutation, or another thorax, or something else besides mandibles. These creatures all perished within one generation or so since they were burdened with this unecessary baggage that did not work right and thus they lost the battle for survival. This must have gone on for quite awhile until finally one day one of these ant-like creatures eventually produced a workable mandible, however not just one, but two at the same time to function together as pincers, with all of the cutting ability, the lifting muscles, the defensive and offensive power to fend off enemies that most ant mandibles have today. And it must have been a male and a female together at the same time who grew identical mandibles so that their offspring would carry the gene and pass it on to it's offspring lest it disappear as a quirky recessive trait that gets lost in the gene pool. And from there all of these other variations evolved with their marvelously configured variations in the different ant species."

- Now I feel that this is way too simplistic an approach. Can someone shed some light on where the writer is going wrong? And hopefully in the process shed some light on mutational change's ability to develop seemingly irreducibly complex systems.

For a long time people wondered how lungs could have evolved in water based animals and it became apparent that it was a change in the swim bladder - so I am not assuming there are no answers.

Please lets not have any pointless arguments about Evolution vs. ID etc. Can someone just answer the question?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#10909 - 01/01/06 06:22 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
There are not things that do not fit the evolution theory. There are things that APPEAR not to at first glance coupled with a lack of knowlege and understanding.

Top
#10910 - 01/01/06 06:58 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Planko Offline
Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Mars
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
There are not things that do not fit the evolution theory. There are things that APPEAR not to at first glance coupled with a lack of knowlege and understanding.
Gee thanks. Is it alright with you if we go on with the discussion now?

Top
#10911 - 01/01/06 07:04 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Planko Offline
Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Mars
Come on people. Admit it, it happens to all of us. You are sitting there and hear something and say to yourself, "Wow! How does that fit into evolution theory?" I don't care if you're the most scientific scientist in science. I guarantee that exclamation pops up in the mind on occasion, for however short a time frame, in all of you.

So don't be shy, let's hear the ones that stumped you. Again, for however short a period that may have been.

Top
#10912 - 01/01/06 07:24 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Planko Offline
Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Mars
This is the standard refrain. But it just doesn't seem to cut it for me. Many of the points don't seem to logically follow.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dogrock:
Men adorn themselves with the things they believe attract females, i.e. power, wealth. Personality traits are sometimes aggressive to achieve these ends. Women adorn themselves with "flowers" and personality traits are often compliant.
So why is it different for men? Why wouldn't traits of power and wealth be attractive to men given that the driving aim is to seek the highest probability of producing offspring which will have those traits? It doesn't follow. Given, that the desired outcome suggests that both male and female parents would most desirably have those traits, or probably more exact, traits of health and longevity, it seems to even out and again leaves the question, "well then why do women adorn themselves more than men?".

Quote:
However all that is changing as men and women are reversing roles and so it is that men are now starting to wear the "flowers" and women the dark power suits. Men do whatever will enhance their changes of procreation, women do whatever will give them the "best" offspring. But I think evolution is so long and winding that applying it to a local time or place is not always wise.
Men doing whatever will enhance their chances of procreation, and women doing whatever will give them the "best" offspring, makes it seem like it would be men who adorn themselves more. See what I mean? It doesn't logically follow.

Top
#10913 - 01/01/06 07:40 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Planko Offline
Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Mars
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacknad:
I have no issues with common descent etc.

I am, however, interested in the idea of Irreducible Complexity....
Well I have no background in biology, and am not all that familiar with the concept of irreducible complexity. But I'm not sure I see the problem here? Why couldn't the tail and the motor of the flagellate have begun as a less compicated version and evolved to the "complicated" version of today? Where exactly does this notion of irreducible complexity come from?

Same thing with the ants' mandibles. Why couldn't the genetic mutation have started as just a nub on the ants head, not wierd enough to cause its demise within a very few generations, and in fact possibly infinitesimally slightly useful in some way, and through generation after generation evolved more and more use, building upon itself through mutation (or iteration or whatever you prefer)?

Top
#10914 - 01/01/06 07:47 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Planko Offline
Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Mars
By the way, I'm sure there is some good probability work that can/has been done on whether the assumed time frame of the existance of an order or class and the time frame of probabilistic occurance of genetic mutation, concur with one another.

Can anybody tell me what this field of probability study might be labelled?

Evolutionary Probability? Is it fairly conclusive?

Top
#10915 - 01/01/06 09:47 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Why couldn't the genetic mutation have started as just a nub on the ants head, not weird enough to cause its demise.

- We would probably need to ask this question of many functional appendages. The problem, for me, is why we don?t see these useless nubs on existing animals. If what you say is correct, (and I am not saying it isn't), then why don't we have unexplainable lumps and bumps covering us, we are (maybe) oddly smooth. They would have as much chance appearing as any advantage giving structures. Of course because they would give no advantage they would not proliferate. But then why did the ants nubs? And the many other things that would need to appear in order to later become functional?

Wood ants squirt acid from their abdomens. This needs three things:

A cavity to hold it (gland). Acid to go in it (something to create it). A device to squirt it.

How does this occur through mutation?

What advantage does this confer unless it actually works? A partial acid squirting system does not squirt acid. Acid without the ability to use it confers no advantage. The ability to squirt something with nothing to squirt gives no advantage. At first thought the system seems to need to appear spontaneously. I don't think this is the case - what are the stages the wood ants acid squirting could go through, from simple to complex - confering an advantage at every stage to ensure its proliferation into the gene pool?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#10916 - 01/01/06 10:24 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
and in fact possibly infinitesimally slightly useful in some way,

- The nubs would need to do one of the following to become established:

1. Allow an ant to eliminate ants without nubs.

2. Give an ant an advantage over other ants, allowing it to fertilise the Queen's eggs more often.

Worker ants have mandibles, but they are sterile, so can not pass on the advantage. They come from unfertilized eggs. So the Queen must be the originator of the genetic mutation - so to proliferate, the initial, barely formed mandibles must give an advantage when attacking or defending against other colonies. What advantage can lumps give to ants?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#10917 - 01/01/06 10:40 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
and am not all that familiar with the concept of irreducible complexity.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. - Michael Behe.

I've been googling this a bit more (which I should have done before posting on it).
There are good critiques on Behe's approach - mainly along the lines that 'just because we cannot concieve of a simpler system that conferred an advantage doesn't mean there wasn't'. You can't argue with that really.

Systems that satisfy Behe's claim to be irreducibly complex have been shown to be evolvable in a step process, like flagellates tail and motor.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Rob - 'There are not things that do not fit the evolution theory. There are things that APPEAR not to at first glance coupled with a lack of knowlege and understanding.'

- I thought this was a statement of faith in evolution, but you may be right.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#10918 - 01/02/06 05:17 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Planko Offline
Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Mars
A few points,

I think your wood ant acid example is a good one. I was going to say why couldn't this squirting system just have started off as a bit of acid on the ant's mouth which later internalized itself more into the ants body and evolved into this "complex" mechanism, gland and all. However this doesn't seem to explain why the ant would develope this relatively un-complex, but necessarily complex in its own right, precursor mouth acid system in the first place. So I think I see your point.

However the answer might be to not look at the ant but its early, maybe even very early, progenitors where the poison could have started off merely as a distateful or even harmful, to the progenitor's preditor, part of the progenitor's body. Through natural selection and this basis to start on, the progenitor through many interations might have developed this system further which further developed into the "complex" system and ant we see today.

Same thing with the nuubs. And i'm not sure the nubs would have to satisfy the 2 criteria you listed. As long as they at no point contributed to a vulnerability in the ant, I suppose they could go on through iterations until at some point they actually switched into an actual advantage. Sort of just like a useless and uninhindering basis to start on.

I don't think animals, uncluding humans, are as smooth as you think. I actually think we are quite bumpy, depending on how you look at it.


The quote you provided regarding irreducible complexity does seem a bit circular: "If there is such a thing as irreducible complexity, then by definition there could not have been a precursor because then the thing can not be said to be irreducibly complex". Well great, then I guess its settled.


And finally, another poor contribution by me (probably again more in the vain of evolutionary sociology or psychology as my first one probably was):

If the driving force for humans is self-preservation and proliferation of one's own genes, or enhancing chances of procreation or creating the "best" offspring, then where does the existential fact of the urge to commit suicide come in? How is it possible that this idea is not yet eradicated? How about wars? How is it possible that the psychological construct of the willingness to sacrifice ones own life in war, has developed so late in the evolutionary game?

The answer may be that the so called inexcapable urge to procreate and proliferate ones own genes is itself a concept that is undergoing the vary evolutionary change or iteration that it claims to be the underpining of?

Top
#10919 - 01/02/06 01:05 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Planko,

Your wood ant acid idea makes sense. It could have appeared as a foul tasting secretion that was a by-product of some other process. The ability to secrete more and more would have been selected for. And the ability to secrete greater amounts eventually becomes the ability to project, and again this is selected for until you have an ant that bites an enemy and then bends its abdomen forwards and sprays formic acid into the wound.

I cannot imagine the development of the pump at a molecular level, able to spray acid up to 30 cm, but that is simply my ignorance and as Rob says 'a lack of knowledge and understanding'.

Regarding the ant's nubs - isn't a premise of evolution the fact that everything needs to give an advantage to be selected for and end up in the gene pool?

Regarding suicide - I don't think we should expect to see evolutionary reasons for all non-physical human characteristics. I think some things are mere emergent properties. When the thought processes become complex enough to allow self-realisation and the possibility of existential angst etc. then maybe suicide emerges as a solution to that pain.

Planko - "How is it possible that the psychological construct of the willingness to sacrifice ones own life in war, has developed so late in the evolutionary game?
"

- The idea of self sacrifice is certainly not unknown as an evolutionary advantage. A bird will potentially sacrifice its life by playing wounded to draw a predator away from its chicks.

People go to war, not to sacrifice their lives but to kill the enemy. But where a soldier lays his life down to save a wounded comrade, well of course this makes no sense in evolutionary terms. In fact it must be contrary - here you have young strong males (prime breeding material) and the stronger gives his life to protect the weaker who may not even be capable of propagating his genes afterwards.

This is a case of our ability to break free of our evolutionary heritage on many levels.

It is my genes interests that I go out and have as many women as I can. In fact it is in their interests if I save time and dispense with the whole chatting up malarkey and either try a John Nash or simply forcefully take as many women as I can. In fact I should really beat up smaller men and take their women.

I suspect my wife is grateful that I have the ability to choose otherwise.

This is why people can sacrifice themselves for no gain in war - because they are able to choose to.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#10920 - 01/05/06 09:01 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally posted by Planko:
Why is it female humans adorn themselves instead of male humans?:

It seems that female humans, as far as day to day adornments go, adorn themselves I'd say at least 100% more than male humans. Also, at least in "free" societies, they seemingly tend to highlight their sexual features much more than male humans. This seems backwards given that male humans are the ones that are supposedly more sexually driven (thinking about sex on average every 24 seconds and all that jazz). It seems given that, that it would be male humans that would adorn themselves more to attract the opposite sex. This seems to be the case in other classes of the animal kingdom where males are more richly adorned in order to attract a female. What gives?
You're considering a social trait to be a biological trait without foundation. In modern western society, women are more adorned than men (generally). But that's certainly not the case in other societies.

Men seem to be attracted to "healthy-looking" women. Women are attracted to both healthy-looking men and men who show signs that they could support a family.

The same is true of other species, except that signs of supporting a family are not all that important when dealing with species where males don't invest anything in offspring, besides their gametes.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#10921 - 01/07/06 01:11 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Evolution at issue:

I think that man, humanity itself, is a poke in the eye of evolution. If this principle worked on all life form all the millions of years why is one life form, us, unique in so many ways?
Relax, it is ggod for you.
jjw

Top
#10922 - 01/07/06 05:41 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
jjw004 asks:
"I think that man, humanity itself, is a poke in the eye of evolution. If this principle worked on all life form all the millions of years why is one life form, us, unique in so many ways?"

My goodness you really are full of yourself aren't you. You stand in front of a mirror, admire yourself, proclaim yourself superior to all living beings, puff yourself up and think what a smart little boy you are. Makes me want to gag. A little education might lead to a large dose of humility.

You and your species won't be around 1/50th as long as the dinosaurs. And those things you will leave behind on this planet will be of as much consequence as the hills built by colonies of ants.

You are no more unique than the bacteria in your gut without which you couldn't even digest your food.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10923 - 01/07/06 05:58 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
DA:

What little thing in your tirade relates to the point of my statement? So we are animals- some more then others- but we are the only writing and talking animals. We are the only animals drivig cars and inventing computers and rockets.
If you see nothing unique about people animals then try talking to the rest of the animals that evolution produced.
jjw

Top
#10924 - 01/07/06 09:58 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"You and your species won't be around 1/50th as long as the dinosaurs. And those things you will leave behind on this planet will be of as much consequence as the hills built by colonies of ants."

I disagree with this. Think of all the great movies and TV programs that we have sent off into outer-space. Aliens somewhere are bound to enjoy at least one of these programs.

Top
#10925 - 01/07/06 10:03 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
You are no more unique than the bacteria in your gut without which you couldn't even digest your food.

- Where would you start?

Grammar Nazi Alert:

"For many grammarians, unique is the paradigmatic absolute term, a shibboleth that distinguishes between those who understand that such a term cannot be modified by an adverb of degree or a comparative adverb and those who do not. These grammarians would say that a thing is either unique or not unique and that it is therefore incorrect to say that something is very unique or more unique than something else."


So DA, what were you saying about us being no MORE unique?

But to the point. Chimpanzees share 98.5% of their DNA with us indicating we evolved from a common ancestor - Do we share 98.5% of our achievements with them? Does any other species do a fraction of what we are able to do?

In fact every other species on this planet is in the main confined to activities such as eating, crapping, procreating, sleeping, hunting, fighting and grooming.

I also think that we are the only species to stand alone within a genus.

So are we unique? Of course.

The question is would we stay unique?

On the basis that chimpanzees can understand basic sign language and demonstrate the ability to use innovation when solving problems, it would seem not. Give them another couple of million years and they will probably join us in destroying the planet and maybe even make it to the giddy heights of producing their own reality TV programs: Chimp Idol - Celebrity Fit Chimp.

So as much as I would like it to be otherwise, I cannot really agree with you Jim. We are not a poke in the eye for evolution.

Now there is half a debate to be had about whether the future chimps would develop all of the characteristics that we have, such as complex emotion, love, art, justice, compassion, philosophical musings, sex for the fun of it etc. Can we even assume that they would become self aware? Would they develop religion without us Christians placing Gideons Bible's in the Monkey Hospitals?

Now I'm straying into origins. I won't go there, not on this board.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#10926 - 01/09/06 12:54 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Good! No doubt those aliens recieving our radio signals are saying similar things to what we say about chimps... Don't you think? -And so, the worlds most praised genius is about as unique as a cell that is very good at doing it's job, whatever that may be.

Top
#10927 - 01/09/06 09:47 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Sorry jjw but you are incorrect yet again when you write:
"but we are the only writing and talking animals."

The above statement is not correct. Provably not correct when considered with the planet's current inhabitants and quite impossibly incorrect over many millions of years prior.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10928 - 01/09/06 11:29 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
DA:

What little thing in your tirade relates to the point of my statement? So we are animals- some more then others- but we are the only writing and talking animals. We are the only animals drivig cars and inventing computers and rockets.
If you see nothing unique about people animals then try talking to the rest of the animals that evolution produced.
jjw
Yes, evolution in most cases does not lead to bigger and bigger brains. An antilope with a slightly larger brain would have no use for it. It would gain the abilty to become depressed about a pointless life for the price of a larger energy consumption smile

Top
#10929 - 01/10/06 12:23 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Count:
Well put.

DA:
How about those others learnig more than ecribbles and grunts, where are they, tour ancestors?
jjw

Top
#10930 - 01/10/06 01:13 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Count Iblis II wrote:
"Yes, evolution in most cases does not lead to bigger and bigger brains. An antilope with a slightly larger brain would have no use for it."

Interestingly enough one of the current theories about the size of our brain relates to the fact that it allows us to hunt during the hottest part of the day when leopards and lions sleep ... Simple Darwinian evolution ... the organ within then filled the available room ... and we used that extra gray matter ... well at least some of us did. ;-)

I'm not saying I buy it but it is viewed favorably by many who are the experts in biology.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10931 - 01/11/06 02:43 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
y Offline
Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 49
Loc: everywhere
Assuming that evolution is correct, and that it works on the principle of the survival of the fittest, where does mercy come in, mercy never helped anybody survive?
_________________________
y

Top
#10932 - 01/11/06 02:50 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
y Offline
Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 49
Loc: everywhere
if a scientist had the same chemical elements that were around when life began,
and a scientist also had the same environmental conditions that were around when life began,
and that scientist had the time to try out all combinations of elements and environmental conditions,
would that scientist be able to create life?
_________________________
y

Top
#10933 - 01/11/06 03:05 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally posted by y:
Assuming that evolution is correct, and that it works on the principle of the survival of the fittest, where does mercy come in, mercy never helped anybody survive?
What do you mean by mercy ?

Survival of the fittest (which might better be stated, "survival of the fit enough") isn't about putting animals in a ring and letting them fight it out. It's about how well a creature can collect the necessary resources from the environment that it needs in order to live and reproduce.

Some creatures, including humans, find that personal survival is enhanced when they cooperate with members of their own species.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#10934 - 01/11/06 03:08 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally posted by y:
if a scientist had the same chemical elements that were around when life began,
and a scientist also had the same environmental conditions that were around when life began,
and that scientist had the time to try out all combinations of elements and environmental conditions,
would that scientist be able to create life?
That's my assumption. What you are describing, though, is abiogenesis and not evolution.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#10935 - 01/11/06 11:09 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by y:
Assuming that evolution is correct, and that it works on the principle of the survival of the fittest, where does mercy come in, mercy never helped anybody survive?
Mercy and compassion may be useful in helping one's relatives, whose genes are shared by the one being merciful, thus serving to pass on one's genes by proxy.

Top
#10936 - 01/12/06 12:02 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
y asks:
"mercy never helped anybody survive"

This is provably not correct. Mercy builds alliances and alliances prevent conflict. Mercy is self-serving for the one that is merciful and a benefit to the society as a whole.

One simple example: Following WWII the western allies cold have been mericiless toward the Germans and Japanese. They could have marched those countries into the dustbin of history with some moral justification.

Luckily intelligent minds prevailed that studied the failure of the armistice following WWI and they were incredibly merciful rebuilding both countries.

Today there is little doubt that both Germany and Japan have better relationships with the western allies than some of the western allies have with each other.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10937 - 01/12/06 12:52 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Social mammals learn from each other. A dead mammal (of the same species) is a wasted source of knowledge, knowledge that is essential for survival. Notice how when a human is given power most of their mercy goes to the dogs. Sad to say, not literally -dogs are victims too. smile

Top
#10938 - 01/12/06 07:54 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Luckily intelligent minds prevailed that studied the failure of the armistice following WWI and they were incredibly merciful rebuilding both countries.


- Substitute 'sensible' for 'merciful. Mercy becomes mercenary.

Blacknad.

Top
#10939 - 01/13/06 07:52 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
And consult is a concatentation of Convict and Insult.

They were both sensible and incredibly merciful.

But I'm not sure the two words are mutually exclusive in their definition. One overlaps the other.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10940 - 01/13/06 10:33 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Hey, hey! Let's keep on topic.
(don't mid me, just practicing to be a moderator) smile

The more intelligent an animal gets, the more understanding it has of things. That's why mercy seems silly -because you are looking at it from the simplest point of view. Look at mercy as a human does and you will realise that it is a very complex matter.

Top
#10941 - 01/16/06 06:21 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Or a very simple matter.

If one is intelligent enough to learn the lessons of history ... then one can also realize that no progress was made until the invention of mercy.

And yes I do mean the invention of mercy. Watch a cat with a mouse and you will not see mercy ... you will not see the quick clean kill. Look at human history and the vast majority of it demonstrates little if any regard for mercy. Since mercy became part of the equation the quality of human life has improved dramatically and though I hate the diversion ... isn't that the lesson of just a few philosophical/theological credos?

So I see it differently ... I see it as simple. I just don't think the average human being has yet evolved to the state of being able to think that far.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10942 - 01/17/06 05:30 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
So I see it differently ... I see it as simple. I just don't think the average human being has yet evolved to the state of being able to think that far.
I agree that the reason(s) that mercy is a common human trait is simple: it benefits our survival. The mechanisms that might have resulted in the trait called mercy might not be all that simple, but so what?
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#10943 - 01/18/06 12:33 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Blacknad offers:

?So as much as I would like it to be otherwise, I cannot really agree with you Jim. We are not a poke in the eye for evolution.?

Rep: I suspect that those adamant proponents of evolution like to think of it going backwards from now to then- when ever that was?

Evolution is intended to explain what we see now on the Earth. What part, if any, did evolution play in the origins of what we see now? Would any proponent argue that evolution had a hand in the initial origins of the life forms that got started on this planet? What is there in Darwin?s theory that serves to explain the beginning of so many forms of life as opposed to the possibility of their survival?

Let?s reconsider the Count?s idea that brain size is not useful to some animals, say a squirrel. This animal is essentially defenseless. May we conclude he is defenseless because he is intended to be eaten? Can we make the same conclusion about fish, many birds and all kinds of four legged animals? Did evolution decide which of us animals should be food and which should be dinners? Some fish have large teeth and others, like ells, have electric charges so they can resist being food. What happened to evolution for the rest of them that never in millions of years developed defenses to the most common source of extinction, being eaten? So you may suggest they relied on numbers. Produce more than the dinners can eat- is that a reasonable explanation when the ability to avoid being eaten would be more efficient?

My point is that while Evolution has a lot to offer it is not the Holly Grail that it is touted to be. Further more humanity is different, albeit our bodies are as animal as the rest of creation. We are aware. We can out wit the rest of the animals (some of which would love to have a larger brain, I?m sure) and that makes us the most dangerous of all the creatures. If evolution was deciding which animals were not to get the benefit of special defenses to avoid extinction and enhance survivability, then evolution is a creator of sorts with a grand plan up front to make sure this planet has a little of everything?
The defenseless eaters and the eaten. Weird?
jjw

Top
#10944 - 01/18/06 12:48 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Error:
The defenseless to be esten and the eaters. A grand plan from the very beginning? Weird?
jjw

Top
#10945 - 01/24/06 07:04 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina


Let?s reconsider the Count?s idea that brain size is not useful to some animals, say a squirrel. This animal is essentially defenseless. May we conclude he is defenseless because he is intended to be eaten?


Intended by what?

Can we make the same conclusion about fish, many birds and all kinds of four legged animals? Did evolution decide which of us animals should be food and which should be dinners?

The word "decide" implies an entity made a conscious decision. But if you ignore that implication, I suppose evolution does decide that.

Some fish have large teeth and others, like ells, have electric charges so they can resist being food. What happened to evolution for the rest of them that never in millions of years developed defenses to the most common source of extinction, being eaten?

I could be wrong, but I sincerely doubt "being eaten" is the most common cause of extinction.

So you may suggest they relied on numbers. Produce more than the dinners can eat- is that a reasonable explanation when the ability to avoid being eaten would be more efficient?

Can you show that it would be more efficient?

My point is that while Evolution has a lot to offer it is not the Holly Grail that it is touted to be.

I don't think you've established your point.

Further more humanity is different, albeit our bodies are as animal as the rest of creation. We are aware. We can out wit the rest of the animals (some of which would love to have a larger brain, I?m sure) and that makes us the most dangerous of all the creatures. If evolution was deciding which animals were not to get the benefit of special defenses to avoid extinction and enhance survivability, then evolution is a creator of sorts with a grand plan up front to make sure this planet has a little of everything?

Once again, the word decide is troublesome. And if evolution is a "creator of sorts with a grand plan up front," why would that grand plan include so many dead ends?
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#10946 - 01/25/06 12:49 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Rusty Rockets Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/04/05
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
...evolution is a creator of sorts with a grand plan up front to make sure this planet has a little of everything?
jjw
CODE RED: Origins alert!!!

Top
#10947 - 01/25/06 04:22 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Anonymous
Unregistered


Every food chain at its simplest contains three elements: a primary producer, a primary consumer, and a secondary consumer. Primary producers produce biomass which is consumed by the primary consumer, which are then consumed by the secondary consumer. Let's take an example from the African savannah. Plants are the primary producers, Zebras, gazelles and wildebeasts are examples of primary consumers, and Lions and Hyenas are secondary consumers. Each occuppies its niche in the food chain. If for instance zebras were to go extinct, there would be an opportunity for a forager to feed on what they used to eat (not all primary consumers snack on the same foods). A strain of wildebeast or gazelle could then move in and take over the forage that once sustained the zebras. In so doing they would have to adapt to the different food source, and those best fitted to utilize it would prosper, passing on their genes to future generations. When enough time passed, they would have mutated (adapted) enough to be a new species, separate and distinct from the ancestral species. In terms of evolution, organisms adapt to utilized available resources; sufficient adaptation results in new species being formed.

I could give an example from deep ocean vents, but most of you wouldn't understand it too well. It's easier to envision a world without zebras than a world without shrimps or giant tube worms.

Top
#10948 - 01/25/06 04:31 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Rusty Rockets Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/04/05
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaranth Rose:

I could give an example from deep ocean vents, but most of you wouldn't understand it too well. It's easier to envision a world without zebras than a world without shrimps or giant tube worms.
Has it got anything to do with a story, Volcanic Clay May Have Served As Womb For Emergent Life , that we covered last year?

Top
#10949 - 01/26/06 02:03 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
Thanks, Amaranth and Soilguy, for your explainations. And thanks JJW for your theories that have lead to the explainations, too smile

I'm learning a lot, here. I'm sure other readers are, too.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#10950 - 01/26/06 11:07 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Anonymous
Unregistered


No, Rusty. I was thinking about the geoautotrophic bacteria as primary producers and realized then I'd have to explain what a geoautotroph was and that could take some time. So I chose the macroscopic example that first came to mind.

Top
#10951 - 01/28/06 05:58 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Hi all and soil guy:

I agree with the many comments and I guess I was lax in being more explicit in my view. Being eaten is not the most common means to extinction but it is potentially the fastest. One bird eats the eggs of another and the eaten goes bye bye. While evolution is allowing for the survival of the fittest by adaptation that serves to accomplish that purpose some of the microbes from the ocean are somehow divided into those to be consumed and those that are to be the consumers. It is possible that I am the only person here that sees this to be a unique development. If there were no carnivorous animals except scavengers of corpses there would be survival of lots of misfits as long as the environment did not take them down or force adaptation. So why did nature create the carnivorous ones? Otherwise why didn?t nature provide the rest of the eatables with more defenses?

From the various responses to my comments I get the impression that everything was by pure chance and I can accept that. Soil guy was concerned with my use of the word ?decide? or decided and I did not mean that literally. When one animal progresses and another goes extinct there is a decision being made of sorts by nature which some how deprived one of the species of what ever it took to make the adjustment. The more I think about it the more complex the application of evolution becomes for me.
jjw

Top
#10952 - 01/28/06 08:17 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Anonymous
Unregistered


I disagree a little here.
The Eastern Society you know here has come into existence very recently.
Not only Women are treated badly.. even Gurus are treated badly.
Why?
Take the example of teachers...
Teachers once understood as equivalent to God left no room for Life. They tried to linearize the entire Society forgetting the very nature of Life.
They took every rule as a Manifestation of Binary (or Shankya in Sanskrit) Universe.
It was the biggest blunder they ever made and paid the price.
They got reduced to just another begger.

Top
#10953 - 01/30/06 03:56 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
jw004 wrote:
"The more I think about it the more complex the application of evolution becomes for me."

Why? It is amazingly simple. This has absolutely nothing to do with survival of the fitest as though fitness is some static quality.

An essential element of fitness is adaptability. Can you survive climate change? Can you survive a new disease organism? Can you survive a new predator? Can you survive disappearance of your primary food source?

Humans fail on almost every measure of fitness except for that of adaptability. No beef ... we eat fish or foul. No sunshine ... we wear the skins of others. No claws ... we make knives and spears.

This is not complexity ... this is the essence of simplicity.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10954 - 01/30/06 07:27 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
I disagree a little here.
The Eastern Society you know here has come into existence very recently.
Not only Women are treated badly.. even Gurus are treated badly.
Why?
Take the example of teachers...
Teachers once understood as equivalent to God left no room for Life. They tried to linearize the entire Society forgetting the very nature of Life.
They took every rule as a Manifestation of Binary (or Shankya in Sanskrit) Universe.
It was the biggest blunder they ever made and paid the price.
They got reduced to just another begger.
You're rambling again. Please try to get on the same topic as everyone else.

Top
#10955 - 01/30/06 05:08 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Hi all and soil guy:

Oh I get it now. I see what game we're playing. It's called, "Let's segregate the soil scientist from us decent folk." Well I've had it will elitists like you! wink

I agree with the many comments and I guess I was lax in being more explicit in my view. Being eaten is not the most common means to extinction but it is potentially the fastest.

I can't say for sure, but I would guess starvation would be a bigger cause of extinction. Exposure after an abrupt environmental change might also be a biggy.

While evolution is allowing for the survival of the fittest by adaptation that serves to accomplish that purpose some of the microbes from the ocean are somehow divided into those to be consumed and those that are to be the consumers. It is possible that I am the only person here that sees this to be a unique development. If there were no carnivorous animals except scavengers of corpses there would be survival of lots of misfits as long as the environment did not take them down or force adaptation. So why did nature create the carnivorous ones? Otherwise why didn?t nature provide the rest of the eatables with more defenses?

The term "survival of the fittest" is a little over the top, IMO. Seems like it's more like "survival of the fit enough."

Instead of thinking of evolution only as one species struggling against another, also think of it as individuals struggling to live to reproduce. How well does a population of creatures do at sending its genes on to the next generation? Many different tactics and combinations of tactics can work. Along the lines of your thoughts, some may have defenses, others may produce large numbers of individuals with fewer defenses. It may seem to YOU that the ones who can defend themselves are best fit to reproduce, but observations show that producing large numbers of offspring can be quite effective.

From the various responses to my comments I get the impression that everything was by pure chance and I can accept that. Soil guy was concerned with my use of the word ?decide? or decided and I did not mean that literally. When one animal progresses and another goes extinct there is a decision being made of sorts by nature which some how deprived one of the species of what ever it took to make the adjustment. The more I think about it the more complex the application of evolution becomes for me.
jjw


DA Morgan is right, you're making things too complicated. Biologically, an individual is a "success" if that individual lives to breeding age and successfully reproduces. That's all. It doesn't matter, for example, if a bear can kick a mouse's butt in a fight. If the bear has difficulty getting food, defending its cubs, finding cover, etc., it could be in danger of being a biological "failure." The keys to survival don't necessarily mean the ability to defeat another creature in a cage match.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#10956 - 01/31/06 12:06 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"If there were no carnivorous animals except scavengers of corpses there would be survival of lots of misfits as long as the environment did not take them down or force adaptation."

A presupposition of evolution is that populations of organisms will expand to overflow the capacity of the environment. This creates the selection pressure. If there were no carnivores, there would still be evolution.

I'm not sure what "misfit" means. Evolution doesn't say that the most fit will survive. Roughly, it says that "on average" those that are best adapted to their environment will pass on their genetic material. If you can find the existing food faster, or take it away from those who have it, or find it in places the other guys can't get, then you are better adapted to a specific niche, and those other guys are in trouble.

Success means being able to produce offspring which can reproduce. It doesn't work for the improvement of an individual. Sickle-cell anemia kills its host, but it provides a little protection against malaria. IIRC, something like 3 million people per year die of malaria in Africa alone. Having any protection at all is a big advantage - so the sickle-cell genes pass from generation to generation, regardless of the fact that it will eventually kill each host, because "on average" the host will live long enough to reproduce.

Top
#10957 - 02/02/06 07:42 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
I will stand corrected. It is not complex to you all. Your posts make a lot of sense and are very convincing. I see something deeper that may not exist and would not change your well put explanations even if it did exist.
jjw

Top
#10958 - 03/15/06 09:54 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
rlb60123 Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 25
I want to join the discussion group that decided to start the mutating of ants so that they would have Mandibles. Where do I apply, any insite?

And another thing, the thing that started wasps mutating out stingers should be sued. I have been stung at least 30 times in my life and I want compensation. And another thing about stingers, they sure are a violent thing to add to an animal. I thought they had Mandibles they could use to kill things with. Two things to do one thing, talk about overkill.
Who wants to eat what they just stuck their arse on anyway.
Failsafe system? I think to much I think.

Top
#10959 - 03/16/06 06:40 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
rlb60123 ... please try rewriting with content.

And stay away from the use of four letter words. We are all adults and are wholly unimpressed.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10960 - 03/18/06 01:36 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Chaoslillith Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/05/06
Posts: 137
Looks like I get to play the role of pointing out that humans are not all that unique.

Yes we have technology and writing but do you really think animals do not have individual languages for each species? Admittedly, the language may be mostly body signals in some cases but it is still a language.

Writing, elephants can use a paint brush and make artwork that sells and looks a lot like some of the "modern art" I see in the museums.

The topic of mercy, elephants mourn their dead, wolves, African wild dogs and many other pack species feed and try to care for injured or sick pack members.

Are we unique and special, can we fly without aid, see in the dark, hear or speak in ultrasonic ranges, live for months without drinking water, come alive as toads do in monsoon storms and then hiberate for months if not years waiting for the seasons to be correct again?

Our brain was our survival adaptation to make up for all the things we lack that other creatures have.

There is no best species, no master species, no dominant species. Life is interdependent upon each other. Other then perhaps lemmings, humans seem the only species intent on self destruction however, maybe that is what makes us "special".

Top
#10961 - 03/18/06 07:19 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Any time humans get too full of themselves and want to loudly trumpet their superiority over the animals it might do them a bit of good to go have a conversation with Owen and Mzee.

If they can talk to each other ... one would expect a superior human could join in.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hippo-tort.htm
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1718758.php
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0439829739/103-9404023-2948633?v=glance&n=283155

No doubt someone will now get their drawers in a twist.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10962 - 03/20/06 02:52 PM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
How precious. Thank you for sharing.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#10963 - 05/11/06 09:55 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
here's an idea about the ant. the mandibles might have started off as a pair of legs, that were used to put food into the mouth. along came one that was able to use it to cut, which gave it an advantage, but it was still weak since it was still used as a leg. then one came along that the legs were harder, which made it stronger, and a better fighter, allowing it to kill the other kind easier. then another, until it mutated into the type they have to day.

the ones that squirt acid might originally have not had it, but there was a food source that was not being tapped. when other food sources began to dry up, some of them tried to eat the new source. with many different ones, a few had a form of acid (there are always lots of mutations, the great majority of which disappear for lack of a use) which was able to convert the food to something they could use. this gave them an advantage over non mutated ones. then came the ones that squirted the acid, giving them a better advantage.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#10964 - 05/31/06 11:36 AM Re: The Official "Things That Don't Fit the Theory of Evolution" thread.
Peter Bmn Offline
Member

Registered: 05/28/06
Posts: 35
Loc: Canberra
With evolution you have to start at the beginning of something. You need to know what came before ants to be able to ask meaningfull questions about their development.
The current thinking is that Ants are wasps which took to the ground and lost their wings (apart from the males and queens). Therefore the ant mandibules developed from wasp mandibles rather than from "nubbins" on their cheeks. To look for "nubbins" you would have to trace back well before the first proto insects till you found something with a mouth that was clearly not a mandible.
Untill you have a definate starting point it is very difficult to make realistic guesses about how to get from there to the end point.

In discussion on evolution in multicelular organisms most debate seems to be stuck in the simple bacterial paradigm of needing sequential mutations to produce significant change.
However in complex organisms there is a very different process at work - the recombination of genes via sexual reproduction. With changed selection pressure, this can rapidly produce radical changes in populations without the need for any new mutations. Look at how human selective breeding has produced so many different varieties of dogs, cats, birds, fish and plants, etc, and much of this has occured in only a few hundred years.
Sexual reproduction allows the bringing together of a number of mutations which can combine to produce the beginning of a new characteristic. In addition, sexual reproduction allows individual genes which reduce survival value to be retained in a population long enough to have the oportunity to combine with other genes which interact to produce much higher servival values.

Many bacteria do not stick to the simple sequential mutation model. e.g. Drug resistance can be transfered between many different strains of bacteria, and a pathogen can pick up resitance to a number of different antibiotics without the need to ever come into contact with any of them. Alternatively, harmless strains of bacteria can acquire genes for toxins, etc, which turn them into pathogens.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.