Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[rossum]

Right, that’s my point , but that can’t work in the real world.

It can, and does.

Evolution and the environment would have to work at the same exact time for any offspring to be fit enough to survive.

Is the environment too warm? Move north a bit. Is the environment too cool, move south a bit. Is the environment too dry? Move towards a river or lake. Is the environment too wet? Move towards the desert. Evolution is not the only process at work here.

Also, the match does not have to be exact. As long as the organism can survive and reproduce in the environment then it will survive. It does not have to be perfectly adapted in order to survive. Humans are not perfectly adapted to live on earth. We are killed by malaria, typhus, plague and large carnivores for instance.

Or even better, evolution would almost have to be one step ahead of the environment.

Often it is. Because mutations are random, members of a population are scattered around an average genome. Some would be better adapted to a slightly warmer climate; some would be better adapted to a slightly cooler climate. That is the nature of random variation – it is random. Whichever way the environment changes, some in the population will be a little better adapted to the changed environment and others will be less well adapted. Over time the better adapted will have more offspring and more copies of their better adapted genes will be present in the population. The average genome will change, tracking the change in the environment, and random mutation will generate a pattern of mutations around that new average.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[rossum]

Mutations are not random?

If, and only if, Vishnu intervenes to make that cosmic ray zag instead of zig.

I was answering the question Fatima-Crusader asked.

 

[Techno2000]

Is the environment too warm? Move north a bit. Is the environment too cool, move south a bit. Is the environment too dry? Move towards a river or lake. Is the environment too wet? Move towards the desert. Evolution is not the only process at work here.

How do organisms know where to move to?

Whichever way the environment changes, some in the population will be a little better adapted to the changed environment and others will be less well adapted. Over time the better adapted will have more offspring and more copies of their better adapted genes will be present in the population.

This way too generalized and abstract, please give me a scenario of this happening in today’s real world situation.

 

[rossum]

This way too generalized and abstract, please give me a scenario of this happening in today’s real world situation.

OK, a rel world example.

When HIV started infecting humans, the great majority were susceptible to infection; they had the average genome. A few were ultra-susceptible – they died very quickly after infection, much more quickly than the average. Some people were less susceptible, they were less likely to become infected and the disease progressed more slowly than average in them. A very small group were already immune to the disease. A study of East African prostitutes showed some of them were completely immune to HIV and were not infected, despite the number of their sexual partners.

The average genome was susceptible. Around that average were random variants caused by random mutations. Some variants were more susceptible, some variants were less susceptible and a very few variants were immune. All those variants were found in adults, so were present in the population before HIV spread to the region where they lived.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

This way too generalized and abstract, please give me a scenario of this happening in today’s real world situation.

OK, a rel world example.

When HIV started infecting humans, the great majority were susceptible to infection; they had the average genome. A few were ultra-susceptible – they died very quickly after infection, much more quickly than the average. Some people were less susceptible, they were less likely to become infected and the disease progressed more slowly than average in them. A very small group were already immune to the disease. A study of East African prostitutes showed some of them were completely immune to HIV and were not infected, despite the number of their sexual partners.

The average genome was susceptible. Around that average were random variants caused by random mutations. Some variants were more susceptible, some variants were less susceptible and a very few variants were immune. All those variants were found in adults, so were present in the population before HIV spread to the region where they lived.

Microevolution

 

[rossum]

Microevolution

Yes, evolution. Microevolution is evolution, as any textbook will tell you.

I have already posted the Marbled crayfish example where one mutation resulted in a new species, which is by definition macroevolution.

Mutation are involved in both macroevolution and microevolution. Natural selection is involved in both macroevolution and microevolution.

 

[edwest211]

Scientists are finding out real life is far more complex than thought. They have developed an “organ chip” to help them figure out how things work.

“This work has uncovered potential molecular targets that could help alleviate suffering in patients with EHEC if we could develop ways to suppress their production or enhance their removal in humans. The same human Organ Chip approach combined with metabolomics could help to identify other metabolites that mediate protective effects and increase tolerance to other infections in the future. It also may help us to gain further insight into why certain individuals are sensitive to infections while others are tolerant,” said Ingber.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Techno2000:

This way too generalized and abstract, please give me a scenario of this happening in today’s real world situation.

OK, a rel world example.

When HIV started infecting humans, the great majority were susceptible to infection; they had the average genome. A few were ultra-susceptible – they died very quickly after infection, much more quickly than the average. Some people were less susceptible, they were less likely to become infected and the disease progressed more slowly than average in them. A very small group were already immune to the disease. A study of East African prostitutes showed some of them were completely immune to HIV and were not infected, despite the number of their sexual partners.

The average genome was susceptible. Around that average were random variants caused by random mutations. Some variants were more susceptible, some variants were less susceptible and a very few variants were immune. All those variants were found in adults, so were present in the population before HIV spread to the region where they lived.

Microevolution

That’s quite a churlish response. One wonders why you ask any questions at all. Rossum especially gives you very detailed answers indeed. Pitched at a level that even you should be able to follow. They aren’t arguments. They aren’t puff pieces. And your responses are invariably trite and demeaning.

Is it really too much to ask for some appreciation for the effort?

 

[Techno2000]

Pitched at a level that even you should be able to follow.

How condescending

Is it really too much to ask for some appreciation for the effort?

Thank you…rossum for your response to me.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Pitched at a level that even you should be able to follow.

How condescending

Is it really too much to ask for some appreciation for the effort?

Thank you…rossum for your response to me.

Cool. Now I will try my best to cut out the condesension as well. I’ll bear that in mind if you bear in mind and appreciate rossum’s heroic attempts to explain the theory to you.

 

[rossum]

Another real world example of evolution, actually two examples – one at each pole.

How fish evolved antifreeze twice.

The different routes taken to the same destination are typical of the randomness of evolution.

 

[Aloysium]

This would be an example of how we group the facts into belief systems. Using the words “random” and “serendipitous” does not make it so. That this “mutation” occurred in a “a sequence we thought was useless and turned it into a vital adaptive protein” suggests that the “junk” DNA serves a purpose, to be utilized should the need arise. I do understand your perspective, but consider it to be of limited validity.

Also, note that fish remain fish. I haven’t heard anyone argue against “evolution”, changes within different kinds of things. The article quotes the researcher as saying, “This goes to show how creative evolution can be,” Outside her evolutionary philosophical framework, is the fact that nature demonstrates creativity, in addition to beauty; and functionality, when we address the relationship between the organism and constituent parts of the environment, which they together, form.

 

[rossum]

Also, note that fish remain fish.

So you have no problem with humans evolving from ape predecessors since “mammals remain mammals”.

Biblical kinds are only useful if you can tell us where the boundaries lie. For example, Noah had ravens and doves on the Ark. Hence there are at least two Biblical kinds within the Aves. How many kinds and what are the boundaries? If we do not know the boundaries then we cannot tell if a specific evolutionary transition crosses one of those boundaries or not.

 

[Aloysium]

I 've come to the conclusion that people don’t actually read my posts, but rather just look for something they can take out of context and disagree with.

Let’s be specific; we are each individual and unique expressions of one humankind. We are not mammals, although, we superficially bear many of the same physical and psychological characteristics. What defines a kind of organism, to me, has to do with the nature of their being, their soul in other words, that which unifies all the stuff, all the information contained in their psychopsychological structure, into one thing. Each individual creature would be a bodily manifestation in time and space, of that soul. The concept of mammal, would include many different kinds of living being. What makes us human, regardless of our genotype or phenotype, is being an eternal, grounded in the Now, soul, having a free will and capable of knowing, not merely reacting to, what is other to our selves.

 

[Aloysium]

Let’s cut out the generalities, the vague and simplistic explanations.

Since things get very complicated real fast up the hierarchy of life, I would ask the reader to explain something basic, how the flagellum evolved in simple bacteria that would not have originally possessed one. What we see here are proteins taking on their particular shape based on the sequence of amino acids, which provides them with their particular function, the entire mechanism constructed by other proteins, all of them coded for in the genome.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rossum]

We are not mammals,

You are talking theology here. Many of us are talking biology. In this thread, which is about the “Natural evolution of species” biology is to the fore.

Biologically, humans are mammals.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

We are not mammals,

You are talking theology here. Many of us are talking biology. In this thread, which is about the “Natural evolution of species” biology is to the fore.

Biologically, humans are mammals.

This isn’t theology; it’s still taxonomy, but going beyond the reductionistic, merely physical models that we currently use, and also considering the totality of what are living creatures, themselves, and especially us, ourselves. That said, there is some benefit to thinking of the human body and it’s emotional behaviour as mammalian, in terms of the similarities which make experimentation on mammals such as rats, pigs, rabbits and monkeys possible. Outside of this specific usefulness, the current version of biology, will lead us astray when we consider certain aspects of life, such as what we are doing here, our origins. The inevitable distortion occurs because what we are attempting to understand is something greater than merely the basic relationships that exist between the smallest of material objects. In general and in science, we try to explain everything in terms of what we know. However, it is in the breakdown of accepted theories, that we grow in knowledge. The ToE does not meet the cut, but there will be those who will hang on, long after any of us are no longer here.

 

[edwest211]

Referring to evolution as if it has intelligence is false thinking. It adds no guidance. It is evidence of brainwashing.

 

[edwest211]

By accident? Random… uh randomness?

 

[edwest211]

It’s the result of saying only scientific, materialist knowledge is all knowledge. Science is incomplete and missing vital knowledge.