|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How novel features evolve #2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why do you ignore the third (and more propable after epigenetics and the recent immence flow of knowledge about RNA) possibility, that of information from environment causing guided mutations? The evnironment doesn't reach the genome in order to mutate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The evnironment doesn't reach the genome in order to mutate it.
You seem so sure.... Can you bring any evidenc for random mutations in metazoa? DNA replication is imperfect and leads to random errors in the gemone that are referred to as mutations. Here's a paper that goes into great detail about it: http://www.nature.com/...lication-and-causes-of-mutation-409 But that's beside the point that the photype acts as a barrier between the envoronment and the genome, and thus prevents the evironment from directly mutating the genome. Granted, you could nuke your balls in the microwave, or something like that, but I don't think that's what we're talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It had proved beyond any doupt that stress causes genes mutations. ...which are still random with respect to fitness. So therefore, the environment is not driving evolution by directly affecting any mutations.
So the mechanism for it exists in metazoa. But its not a mechanism for what you are proposing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So environment causes gene mutations! Sure, but it really doesn't have any impact on the evolution of species. Its negligible. It doesn't really matter. You just have your pet idea and are doing anything you can to confirm your preconceived suspicions. Far be it from me to try to convince you to do otherwise.
In that case we would have a serious evidence or not of guided mutations. But damn do you have to be grasping at straws to even come close to thinking that!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm guessing you really meant to something about guided evolution since any mutation, regardless of ultimate cause, can have an impact on evolution. So environment causes gene mutations!
Sure, but it really doesn't have any impact on the evolution of species. Your right. What I meant was that environment caused mutations aren't really that important when we're considering the evolution of speices. Sure, they aren't non-existant, but do they really matter? Meh, not so much. They don't really (read: an appreciable amount) affect evolution. Especially, that is, compared to the extent that zi ko wants to use them to claim that it opens up an avenue for there to be guided mutations through the environment. That's why I said they're negligible. But its obvious what he's doing. He wants there to be an intelligent designer. He likes that idea that mutation are guided through the environment. So what does he do? He points to every instance of there being any affect on mutation by the environment and then wants to think that that gives room for his favorite idea... but it doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You may be unduly minimizing the impact of environmentally caused mutations on evolution. I may be. Hey, maybe I'll learn something!
Environmental stress can increase mutation rates. How's that work? What's the mechanism?
A population under environmental stress and possibly facing eventual extinction has a better chance of evolving it's way out of its predicament if it has a higher mutation rate. See, I'm under the impression that zi ko is talking about the environment directly causeing a particular mutation... not that environmental stress can increase the rate of mutations in general.
I think the current understanding is that environmentally caused mutations can matter a great deal. But a particular mutation isn't caused by the enivronment in these cases, is it? I know it is possible for the evnironment to directly cause a mutation, but that's not the same thing as the environment increasing mutation rates. And an environmentally increased mutation rate doesn't have anything to do with guided evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The evnironment doesn't reach the genome in order to mutate it.
Can isuppose,after Percy's intervention, you agree that it is not so?
I agreed that it is not so before Percy's intervention... in a post you've replied to. From Message 132:
quote: In the context of what you are talking about, some sort of guided evolution, the evnironment doesn't reach the genome. There are certain and specific cases where it does happen, and you could make it happen if you wanted to (nuclear tanning bed or something).... but in the context of the evolution of species in general: particular mutations are not caused by the environment directly. They're random. That's all that matters. Your pet idea is wrong. But far be it from me to convince you otherwise or stop you from bringing it up in every single topic that you post in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
taq writes:
Or, so you say. What if we don't have the means to find the evidence...proper technology? What if we are wrong about what true evidence should look like? We ignore it because the evidence doesn't support it. Without the ability to consider the evidence, we have no choice but to ignore it. It might be a problem if we were finding that science didn't really work all that well, but it does... like, really well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
quote: http://news.msu.edu/.../evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I suppose why you are using E. coli adaptation in this thread is because you believe it is a case for evolution. I posted the article because it was news that specifically pertained to the thread topic.
The adaptation of E. coli has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with adaptation. But adaptation and evolution have something to do with each other.
E. coli could already transport citrate into the cell and partially use it in wild, but under low oxygen conditions. There is but a few allowed mutations to take place to refine the process to allow full utilization of citrate as a food source. The mechanism was present in E. coli and only needed to adapt in controlled ways to accommodate full utilization. Hang on a second. Did you take a look at the picture of the researcher: http://news.msu.edu/...5af96-2626-404d-9b9a-32cc393bca34.jpg Click to enlarge that. Those are petri dishes behind him. Think about how much work they put into this. How much work did you or the folks at AiG put into their position? Did they even touch one petri dish? Its one thing to try to get an understanding of how mutation cause novel features to arrise by spending years doing the reseach, but to sit at a computer and type up unevidenced assertions because you're starting at a position of wanting to deny evolution isn't really something that we need to devote any attention too. Reasearchers are going to continue to make advances in the theory and progress is going to be made, and you folk are going to continue to deny it because it upsets your religious sensibilities.
Now are you up to separating designed adaptation from the dogma of evolution? Alternatively, are you claiming evolution is adaptation that leads to speciation? I'm just provinding new information about how mutations lead to novel features, the topic of this thread. This is not a 'prove evolution' thread.
If so, you need a real example of a speciation event, and please do not invoke the magic of time. The magic of time!?
quote: Just to be clear: 31,500 generations of humans is on the order of a half a million years. That long ago, I'd bet that humans looked different enough for even you to consider them a different species than those of us today. Even if you must deny that we evolved and have to say that we only "adapted" since then...
quote: Well sure, I mean, if you want to go back far enough, all we're working with is pre-existing A, T, C, and G's. But its the combinations of those that produce genes, and the mutations to those genes which provide new and novel information that can be seen arrising in the phenotypes. From the article:
quote: Two chunks of DNA stitched together. So, yeah, the chunck already existed but it was copied. You might say that that isn't really new information because the chunk was already there, but the combination of the copy is what lead to a change in the bacteria, and that was new information arrising. The bacteria gained a new ability. That is a novel feature arrising, and researchers have shown how it happens. That is the topic of this thread so do you have anything to comment on about that? How else could the new feature arrose if not this way? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : removed image tags to save bandwidth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The answer to how mutations lead to novel features (adaptations) firmly fits in the Creation mindset. Okay, so within that Creation mindset: How do novel features come about? How do they change?
Given an assumed generation of 20 years for humans, that is 630,000 years to be exact. A change in food source for E. coli would probably parallel humanity switching from total plant eaters to eating meat and plants in 630,000 years. Um, I don't think so. I think that would take a lot more mutations than it took in this research.
Let us see, if there was as little change to humans as in the E. coli; Wait, what? There was a huge change in the E. coli.
how on earth would there be enough changes in a hominid 5.5 million years ago (~8.7x longer) to produce a human from a supposed chimp human divergence? In 275,000 generations? There's plenty of change to be had in that many generations. And it doesn't really take that much change. Our DNA isn't too terribly different from the chimps.
This experiment only illustrates a morphological stasis in both E. coli and humans. No, it does not. It doesn't even illustrate morphological stasis at all, that's a complete non-sequitor. And it does illustrate other things: that is how novel features evolve.
isn’t really new information and was new information Could not characterize your confusion better. Actually, it shows the confustion of the Creation mindset. Think of it this way: There's only 27 letters in the alphabet. All words are just going to be combinations of those pre-existing letter. No new letters come about so according to the Creation mindset; no new information can ever be created. A new book comming out tomorrow with totally novel ideas cannot be considered new information, according to the Creation mindset, because its just using already existing words and letters so no new information is really created. But that's bullshit. Of course new information can come out by combining pre-existing words and letters to form new ideas. Just like new information can come about from mutations to DNA that re-arrange the ATCG's into new combinations. The Creation mindset is just plain wrong about that.
Two ways we know something, either by speculation or revelation. Given the availability of the two choices, I chose the revelation. That's your loss. I choose learning from science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So were you unable to speculate or did you lack the revelation to actually respond to that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A novel feature's a novel feature
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I would say that this adaptation was not novel because of definition one. The adaptation resembled something formally known or used. Can you offer an example of something that you would consider novel?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
A novel adaptation would have to include an entire population where that population becomes homozygous to that trait. Isn't that what happened to the bacteria with the citrate? The ones who had the mutations to be able to digest it survived and the ones who couldn't died. Therefore, the entire population that survived had that homozygous trait. As a whole, that population became heterozygous to what it was.
An individual organism variation would not constitute a novel trait, in other words that trait must be fixed in a population and homozygous to all individuals with new trait substituting into the original genome of the species. The population is made up of individuals, so the trait has to start somewhere. When it spreads to the population that survives the condition, i.e. citrate, and then the ones who don't have it die, then you end up with just individuals who have the novel trait. This is Evolution 101.
That is the heterozygosity completely being cleansed in the resulting genome (a classic sweep in evolution). Right, by the lethality of the citrate killing off all the individuals who don't have the novel trait.
Can a real biologist chime in. Nigga please. This is high school level stuff.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024