Author
|
Topic: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis (Read 30547 times)
|
jucce
Frungy champion
 Offline
Posts: 95
|
I don't think they regard it as a coincident. And this hasn't been stumbled upon accidentally, the mutations are random but natural selection really isn't. Uhhh yes, it really is random. Think about it man, natural selection covers things like mass extinction. A plauge or meteor is a random event. Local phenomena. Local preadators. Isn't it random that a powerful predator will exist in any given area? Biological features themseleves only benifit a species if the enivornment is just right. etc. etc. There are so many variables we cannot even begin to fathom them all. Just because an animal is prolific is no gaurentee of survival.. Now your turn.. How is natural selection NOT random? You are simply wrong here in my view.
Natural selection a process that results in favorable traits being passed on to future generations. If you look at the definition in Wikipedia for example, natural selection really just is a description of a process in nature:Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.
After a meteor strike for example the environment may change but natural selection will not, it just states that the organisms that best fit their environment will pass on their traits.
So the process of natural selection isn't random, it states that organisms that are fit for their particular environment pass on their favorable traits to the next generation.
So it's not random which organisms die and which procreate, which pass on certain traits and which don't. On the individual level, say an animal falling of a cliff it may be random but not when you look at an entire population. It all depends on how well they're adapted to the current environment.
Just take a look on any internet page or book about natural selection:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.htmlA common criticism of natural selection is "how can it produce novel complex useful structures by pure random chance?" Darwin's answer to this "difficulty", (which he actually raised himself), was that selection is NOT a random process, and furthermore, it is cumulative, which he ably explained.
It seems like the five sense for example are very common and beneficial evolutionery functions. Any tendency for vision for example would likely be very beneficial and have much evolutionary benefit. Couldn't this legitamitley also be viewd as common design? Think about common design in real life human engineering. Don't most cars have four wheels?
I see it as a testament to the fact that receiving and processing input from the five sense are a very useful evolutionary adaption.
Natural selection is a non-random cumulative process. If an animal developes something that's neutral or detrimental it probably won't be passed on to future generations. Exactly HOW is it cumulative? Have we ever witnessed this in nature? Breeding produces limited change around a median genome in every species we've studied. Every single one. Yes we can breed some dramatic differences but always within bounderies. Even Darwins finches went right back to the same diversity of beak size once the drought (selection pressure) subsided.
Really Darwin himself says that it's cumulative and non-random from the start.
It's cumulative because the beneficial traits stay as evolution progresses. We have witnessed it in the evolution of all species really, the traits that are beneficial stay and the species continue to evolve. For example the mutation that confers immunity to AIDS in certain situations, appeared about 700 years ago and has stayed in the humane genome. So is also the case with lactose tolerance and sickle-cell resistance in areas with malaria for example.
Also we clearly share very much of our genome with our close relatives, chimpanzees and neanderthals for example. And a significant amount with all life on Earth really.
One interesting example related to the chimpanzees is that one of our chromosomes is a fusion of two chromosomes apes like chimpanzees have separately.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
Well like I said, natural selection is a gradual, cumulative and non-random process. No it's not dude.. Show me the tangible, real world scientific evidence please. (Please no link spams) I'd like your thoughts. Thoughts that truely belong to you. Someone described it as opposed to drawing lottery numbers until you hit the exact ones you have, instead draw the numbers but keep the ones that fit. That way you'll reach your own improbably numbers much faster. Yes, keep the ONES THAT FIT. That is INTELLIGENT design. You are saving hits on a pre-determined number sequence. Natural Selection has no way of predetermining an outcome. For natural selection to work as you describe, every saved "one that fits" has to have a selection advantage or it may fade away. Just as any neutral changes have an equal chance of being replaced or kept. In your lottery ball example there is no gaurentee that eventually every position will be replaced to eventually hit the right combination. That is because natural selection IS random by nature and thus your powerball example is downright silly in my opinion.
The hits that stay are the traits that are passed on as described by natural selection.
Well, like I said, I don't agree that natural selection is random. Also natural selection is an ongoing process. That lottery analogy is really just to describe how gradual cumulative change can reach very complicated seemingly improbable results.
The fact that RType06 survives is evidence that natural selection does not work at all. While this IS a clever insinuation, it is not an appropriate one. Also, nobody says that NATURAL SELECTION does not exist - the thing that is argued about is whether it can produce new species or not.
It can and does:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 26, 2007, 07:25:22 pm by jucce »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Those best adapted to the current enviroment whatever that might be, do well.
..and there it is, the famous argument. "Those best adapted to the current enviornment." What is that? It's impossible to quantify such a thing, thus explains nothing in my view.
Wouldn't it be weirder to have no powerful predators? Assuming that natural selection favours those individual in a population that are best at getting sustenance and reproducing, predators are quite logical.
Absolutely.
And assuming Panagaea existed, what is now local might not always have been.
Sounds completely reasonable...
It would seem more questionable from a ID standpoint, if everything is part of a plan, why place large and different predators everywhere?
I cant speak for all IDists but I for one don't believe everything is part of a plan..ie God . Instead, I believe all evolutionary factors are built into life at the onset and it's called microevolution. If macro evolution exists, then I believe it is part of life programmed into genetics from the begining of life itself.
Very true. Thus only biological features that are beneficial (or at the very least non-harmful) are preserved. That is natural selection. Just because there are many variables doesn't mean something is impossible. It's impossible to accurately simulate a fluid-bed reactor
This is one area where I agree with the old creationist argument; what good is half an eye, half a bat wing, half the birthing process of gall building insects. I know, it always starts with a simple version and gets perfected over time so say the evolutionists. From my view, there are too many irreducibly complex biological systems in nature that makes this idea very difficult to accept. Even if a four chamber heart evolved from a 1 chamber heart, the very idea of a heart had to start somewhere. Annd even that would have been useless without blood, veins, electrical stimulus and a respritory system. Once again, too contrived to chalk up to random chance.
To me, looking at the cardiovascular system of any species and asuming it's the work of random natraulistic forces is akin to popping the hood of a car, pulling the fuel lines and fuel pump and attribute it to naturalistic forces.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Natural selection a process...
It's not even a process bro. It just IS. It's somthing that happens AFTER the fact and isn't quantifiable.
...that results in favorable traits being passed on to future generations.
Please give me a tangible example of this. The classic example is Darwin's finches with larger beaks which is micro evolution. There has never been anything to indicate that micro evolutionary changes such as this will "stick" indefinately. The changes are temporary and part of the normal variation of the animal. No new species.
Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.
I read an article where some scientists are stumped as to why us humans not all beautiful, fit and trim. Why do we all not look like supermodels by now? Why are some people still bald, obese, hairy, short etc. etc. Well even though "ugly" people still breed there should be enough natural selection in place to put most of us into beautiful status by now. I believe the answer is that just like all other species, we have enough natural variation that includes these "ugly" traits and it will always be with us.
So the idea that "favorable" traits remain and unfavorable traits evolve away is pure fantasy unless we can find some concrete evidence that it is true. To my knowledge, thus far, science has never produced this evidence.
So the process of natural selection isn't random, it states that organisms that are fit for their particular environment pass on their favorable traits to the next generation.
We can't even define what "fit for thier particular enviornment" is.
Just take a look on any internet page or book about natural selection: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.html" A common criticism of natural selection is "how can it produce novel complex useful structures by pure random chance?" Darwin's answer to this "difficulty", (which he actually raised himself), was that selection is NOT a random process, and furthermore, it is cumulative, which he ably explained.
Darwin wrote this stuff in the 19th century and he clearly saw that random anything can't produce what we see biologically. That was the industrial age.. Imagine if he had lived in the Information or upcoming genetic age? Natural selection can't be a random process in his mind because his theory would completly fall apart otherwise.
Natural Selection can judge design, that what it is, a natural judge so to speak. It's powerless to PRODUCE design.
I see it as a testament to the fact that receiving and processing input from the five sense are a very useful evolutionary adaption.
Yes, but you could argue that for just about anything once you are convinced it did evolve.
Also we clearly share very much of our genome with our close relatives, chimpanzees and neanderthals for example. And a significant amount with all life on Earth really.
I could probably pull some parts off my SUV and use them on my motorcycle.. So what? Once again, why is common design completely out of the question? And futhermore, perhaps try thinking about the DIFFERENCES for once. What seperates us from chimps?
So what? There are some parts of our DNA sequence where we have more in common with a bannana or a mouse than a chimp. Also, don't brush our genetic differences under the rug.
The hits that stay are the traits that are passed on as described by natural selection.
Yeah, ok, I understand that idea but you are keeping ANY number that falls into the correct sequence where it doesnt matter if you get say the six first or the one first etc... Thus it's not a very good example in my opinion.
Thanx for your post.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 05:56:46 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Baltar: I can tell you are a fairly intelligent person by some of your posts. I even considered responding to you in some of the previous evolution threads where you argued against my points. It's too bad you feel the need to come across so dickish. There's no need for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
Are those really new species, or just variations on the same species? They're neither so different nor unable to cross-reproduce (probably).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
..and there it is, the famous argument. "Those best adapted to the current enviornment." What is that? It's impossible to quantify such a thing, thus explains nothing in my view.
I don't understand your intent or argument here. It is perfectly possible to analyse an enviroment and the creatures within. You can even look at different creatures competing within a system and compare which are "better" evolved to suit the current enviroment. There are also countless examples of creatures that have been well adapted, but who have been wiped out when the enviroment changes. Could you please elaborate on what the problem is here?
I cant speak for all IDists but I for one don't believe everything is part of a plan..ie God . Instead, I believe all evolutionary factors are built into life at the onset and it's called microevolution. If macro evolution exists, then I believe it is part of life programmed into genetics from the begining of life itself.
Doesn't that argue against your point though? correct me if i've misunderstood, but you're of the opinion that microevolution is possible due to selection pressures and random mutation, but macro isn't- So it is possible for a creature to change it's fur, but not possible to evolve into another species. Thus macro evolution implies that code is hidden somewhere in all creatures that guides macro evolution, bringing forth new species when optimal. Shouldn't this mean that we'd have fewer species? If all creatures are coded for this sort of behaviour, all local ecosystems should mirror each other. So you'd have the same bovine everywhere, just looking different but able to interbreed. The same large cat predator, the same elephant, the same everything essentially.
]quote]
This is one area where I agree with the old creationist argument; what good is half an eye, half a bat wing, half the birthing process of gall building insects. I know, it always starts with a simple version and gets perfected over time so say the evolutionists. From my view, there are too many irreducibly complex biological systems in nature that makes this idea very difficult to accept. Even if a four chamber heart evolved from a 1 chamber heart, the very idea of a heart had to start somewhere. Annd even that would have been useless without blood, veins, electrical stimulus and a respritory system. Once again, too contrived to chalk up to random chance.
[/quote]
Even though you quote the solution, you seem unable to utilize it. If the eye hails from some ancient light sensitive skin patch, why can't the heart hail from some other ancient function. The first creatures to have a heart might not even have used it for pumping blood. Just because you feel it is too complicated is no reasn to assume it's impossible.
To me, looking at the cardiovascular system of any species and asuming it's the work of random natraulistic forces is akin to popping the hood of a car, pulling the fuel lines and fuel pump and attribute it to naturalistic forces.
To me looking at evolution and assuming it's the work of some great hidden piece of code present in each and every one of us guiding us to become exactly these creatures seems akin to looking up into the sky and assuming that today was always meant to be sunny. Because hey, weather is a complex and unpredictable system too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
I don't understand your intent or argument here. It is perfectly possible to analyse an enviroment and the creatures within. You can even look at different creatures competing within a system and compare which are "better" evolved to suit the current enviroment.
But can you? How do you figue which is better? Do you count individuals? So if there is more fir trees than pine trees "competeing" in the same area, which is better evolved? If you find 500 different species of fish in the Amazon river or an ocean area all competeing for the same food source, which of these is better evolved? Can you honestly tell me that a trilobite is more or less evolved than a modern horseshoe crab?
There are also countless examples of creatures that have been well adapted, but who have been wiped out when the enviroment changes.
Such as.... ?
Could you please elaborate on what the problem is here?
I hope that I have done just that.
Doesn't that argue against your point though? correct me if i've misunderstood, but you're of the opinion that microevolution is possible due to selection pressures and random mutation, but macro isn't-
Selection pressures may be the reason for animals with certain genomic variables expressed to thrive while others of the same species die . This is natural selection at work. But I believe these are variables programmed into the genome. The genome "allows" these to vary as a survival strategy. And this may extend to the macro level but it has yet to be demonstrated scientificly. It's certainly possible as we all work off the same genetic information system. Intelligent scientists have been able to isolate genes and sequence them into lab rats, but it has never been shown to happen naturally.
Also, The only seemigly random biological aspects are inconsiquential. Such as no two fingerprints, deer horn, zebra stripe, brain arrangement of neurons, immune system etc. are identical. But each coresponding species has them, and always will.
So it is possible for a creature to change it's fur, but not possible to evolve into another species.
It may be possible but scientific expirimentaion has shown stability and longevity in genomes. The fossil record mirrors this as well, species stasis, usually into the millions of years.
Thus macro evolution implies that code is hidden somewhere in all creatures that guides macro evolution, bringing forth new species when optimal.
That is certainly a possibility but I think the evolutionary tools are present, if anything, rather than full sections of pre-existing code. We know DNA is an information storage molecule. We know that the tools are present to read, write, cut-n-paste the DNA information.. Is it so strange to think that, if evolution occurs, that some microcellular machines might have the ability write new code?
Shouldn't this mean that we'd have fewer species? If all creatures are coded for this sort of behaviour, all local ecosystems should mirror each other.So you'd have the same bovine everywhere, just looking different but able to interbreed.
Ahh, but isn't that the case (except for the interbeeding part)? Don't we have fewer phyla of animal species today than preserved in the cambrian strata? And notice how there are hunders of thousands of frog , ant , bird, dog, cat, cattle etc. varients? And don't most similar local ecosystems approximate eachother? Deserts tend to have scorpions lizards and snakes for example.
As for bovine, american buffalo, oxen, water buffalo, domestic cows can all interbreed. Aren't they all just different looking and esentailly the same species? And it is possible that a species of animal can be seperated long enough that they cannot interbreed anymore. This could be a survival strategy to leave bad mutaions such as birth defects behind.
The same large cat predator, the same elephant, the same everything essentially.
All large cats can interbreed and I believe all the paciderms can interbreed.
Even though you quote the solution, you seem unable to utilize it. If the eye hails from some ancient light sensitive skin patch, why can't the heart hail from some other ancient function.
That may be the case but how did the first "light sensitive patch" come into existance? To me, somthing had to realize the importance of detecting light. I don't think it happend by chance or co-opted from other existing systems. We are just going to have to disagree here.
The first creatures to have a heart might not even have used it for pumping blood. Just because you feel it is too complicated is no reasn to assume it's impossible.
Very true, I shouldn't assume it's impossible, and really I don't.. I just find it very improbable. And if it was just one single organ that is one impobability, but nearly every aspect of biology contains this amount of improbabilty which only compounds the problem for me.
To me looking at evolution and assuming it's the work of some great hidden piece of code present in each and every one of us guiding us to become exactly these creatures seems akin to looking up into the sky and assuming that today was always meant to be sunny. Because hey, weather is a complex and unpredictable system too.
Good point, however I don't believe humans were nessicarily destined to become exactly the creatures we are. And as I said above, any evolutionary properties life has I believe were preprogrammed to make evolutionary decisions.
I am agnostic. There may be a god, and an overall plan. This is an area that I ponder alot and am currently undecided.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 01:52:53 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jucce
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 95
|
Natural selection a process... It's not even a process bro. It just IS. It's somthing that happens AFTER the fact and isn't quantifiable.
I'd say it's a description of a process in nature.
...that results in favorable traits being passed on to future generations. Please give me a tangible example of this. The classic example is Darwin's finches with larger beaks which is micro evolution. There has never been anything to indicate that micro evolutionary changes such as this will "stick" indefinately. The changes are temporary and part of the normal variation of the animal. No new species.
Like I mentioned before. For example the mutation that confers immunity to AIDS in certain situations, appeared about 700 years ago and has stayed in the humane genome. So is also the case with lactose tolerance and sickle-cell resistance in areas with malaria for example.
And if you want to go into speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. I read an article where some scientists are stumped as to why us humans not all beautiful, fit and trim. Why do we all not look like supermodels by now? Why are some people still bald, obese, hairy, short etc. etc. Well even though "ugly" people still breed there should be enough natural selection in place to put most of us into beautiful status by now. I believe the answer is that just like all other species, we have enough natural variation that includes these "ugly" traits and it will always be with us. So the idea that "favorable" traits remain and unfavorable traits evolve away is pure fantasy unless we can find some concrete evidence that it is true. To my knowledge, thus far, science has never produced this evidence.
Well beauty is something very subjective. Beauty is a very complex concept, not at all controlled by a single gene like things like eyecolor for example. Even if you have two parents that you consider to be beautiful there's no guarantee you'll think the child is.
However I've read ideas that propose that the reduction of jaw size and the size and shape of brow ridges, foreheads and chins in early humans was caused to a large degree by sexual selection.
So the process of natural selection isn't random, it states that organisms that are fit for their particular environment pass on their favorable traits to the next generation. We can't even define what "fit for thier particular enviornment" is.
Basically if the organism is more successful than others in passing on its genes it's more fit.
Wikipedi says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection...individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.
Just take a look on any internet page or book about natural selection: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.html" A common criticism of natural selection is "how can it produce novel complex useful structures by pure random chance?" Darwin's answer to this "difficulty", (which he actually raised himself), was that selection is NOT a random process, and furthermore, it is cumulative, which he ably explained. Darwin wrote this stuff in the 19th century and he clearly saw that random anything can't produce what we see biologically. That was the industrial age.. Imagine if he had lived in the Information or upcoming genetic age? Natural selection can't be a random process in his mind because his theory would completly fall apart otherwise. Natural Selection can judge design, that what it is, a natural judge so to speak. It's powerless to PRODUCE design.
Yes natural selection pretty much acts as a filter. When we put natural selection with genetic mutations and time we get evolution.
I see it as a testament to the fact that receiving and processing input from the five sense are a very useful evolutionary adaption. Yes, but you could argue that for just about anything once you are convinced it did evolve.
To me it feels quite reasonable that being able to receive and process the large amounts of data from the senses would be very beneficial to an organisms survival.
Also we clearly share very much of our genome with our close relatives, chimpanzees and neanderthals for example. And a significant amount with all life on Earth really. I could probably pull some parts off my SUV and use them on my motorcycle.. So what? Once again, why is common design completely out of the question? And futhermore, perhaps try thinking about the DIFFERENCES for once. What seperates us from chimps?
Well how do you feel about things like retroviruses that become part of the genome? Humans and chimps for example share those in many places in our genome, the same type at the same location.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/
So what? There are some parts of our DNA sequence where we have more in common with a bannana or a mouse than a chimp. Also, don't brush our genetic differences under the rug.
"So what?" I think it's a very significant find giving much credence to the theory of evolution. Don't you agree that the example with the fused chromosome and the retroviruses are strong signs for evolution? And I'm not brushing the differences under the rug, if you want to mention something about it feel free.
The hits that stay are the traits that are passed on as described by natural selection. Yeah, ok, I understand that idea but you are keeping ANY number that falls into the correct sequence where it doesnt matter if you get say the six first or the one first etc... Thus it's not a very good example in my opinion.
Could you elaborate on that?
Thanx for your post.
Well, thanks for your post too.
Are those really new species, or just variations on the same species? They're neither so different nor unable to cross-reproduce (probably).
They're classified as new species, if any of them can interbreed I don't know. However we have clearly witnessed speciation.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 04:18:44 am by jucce »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
Classified as new species, well... but they don't have to obey the classification we set for them. If interbreeding is unsure, this means that their status as different species is unsure.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well he didn't look mad but who knows. And knowing Dawkins is an athiest, he may not have any qualms about lying and backtracking...