|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: The expectation that selection is what drives all changes seems now to be a big factor, with Percy's last few posts and now Tangle's. For God's sake Faith, evolution by descent with modification is the first plank of Darwin's original theory but it was made even more extraordinary because Darwin went on to tell us how he thought it worked - by NATURAL SELECTION. His book was called: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
There may be other hidden assumptions and expectations I need to find out about as well. Hidden! It's one of the most famous ideas in science and it's been around for 150 years. It changed the world. How on earth do you have the brass balls to discuss evolutionary theory without knowing or understanding the absolute basics?
Evolution IS defined as change in gene {allele} frequencies but it's also defined other ways. You wouldn't know what an allele was if it bit you on the arse.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: For cryin out loud I've been saying all this all along!!!!! And I JUST GOT THROUGH SAYING IT AGAIN ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION!!! What I'm adding, or emphasizing, is just that ALL these things bring about POPULATION SPLITS, which is THE FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIVE way allele frequencies get changed. YES, THROUGH ALL THOSE DIFFERENT MECHANISMS. Well silly old us. There we were thinking that you didn't believe in evolution when all along it turns out that you accept mutation, genetic drift and natural selection and that isolated populations will change over time as a result of those - and other - mechanisms. So we have descent with modification by natural selection. And a few more modern bits and pieces too. Congratulations, you're now what you call an "evolutionist."Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Percy writes: I think selection must be included. Its effect is far greater and more immediate than drift. Oh, absolutely. I was just trying to separate the agents than cause change from the agent that directs change once caused because Faith thinks that merely separating a population both causes and directs change. Well, I think that's what she thinks - she's all over the place.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Percy writes: .....but I'm confident that Faith will interpret your lack of mention of selection in that particular message as an indication that you don't believe selection is important. Incredible, I know, but there it is. Ok, so for the record, selection is an important part of the process and has been so for 150 years ;-) But now I'm going to really fcuk things up. It's not always as simple as this is it? We now have the whole new world of evo devo which may allow the phenotype to drive the genotype - a whole inversion of what we, or at least I, used to think. This from the wiki:
Similarly, organismal form can be influenced by mutations in promoter regions of genes, those DNA sequences at which the products of some genes bind to and control the activity of the same or other genes, not only protein-specifying sequences. This finding suggested that the crucial distinction between different species (even different orders or phyla) may be due less to differences in their content of gene products than to differences in spatial and temporal expression of conserved genes. The implication that large evolutionary changes in body morphology are associated with changes in gene regulation, rather than the evolution of new genes, suggested that Hox and other "switch" genes may play a major role in evolution, something that contradicts the neo-darwinian synthesis. Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia Now that is a real shocker. But I've always felt that there was something missing from the ToE, something to explain major changes that just don't seem credible using the standard bit by bit model. I studied biology at degree level in the 70’s and spent a long time looking at the sequence of development of jaw bone into the bones of the middle ear - a clasical demonstration of long term evolution. It was undeniable, I held the bones in my hands - or plaster copies of them - it happened and it was evolution wot did it, but like our creationist friends it just did not seem possible. Evo Devo though seems to supply another route. I only wish I'd kept studying it - now it's all so advanced that I'd have to devote far too much of my life to understand it.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Percy writes: How is it that the role played by regulatory genes (Hox related or not) in "large evolutionary changes in body morphology...contradicts the neo-Darwinian synthesis?" Seems like it simply adds to it to me - and makes it a little easier to understand how major changes can be made. If organisms have a box of parts that are common across phyla that can be plugged in, or not, dependant on swiching on or off regulatory genes, it makes big changes to morphology easier to do - or understand. Selection would carry on as usual.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: Considering that drift hadn't come up until now, what's the problem with my admitting I had a problem getting a clear idea of it? It wasn't for lack of reading up on it, and now that it has .....and......
I've looked it up many times over the years, .... .....and.....
Evolution is not science, it's an unevidenced speculation that has acquired ironclad status despite its unprovability The problem here Faith is that you have absolutely no idea what evolution is, you've never studied it, when you google away at it you consistently get it wrong because you're trying to force it into some preconceived model in your head and when we try to explain it to you you refuse to listen. Instead of learning what millions of scientists have fought to discover over 150 years, you try to invent your own explanations from a few random and barely understood facts. You don't even see that admitting that you don't know what genetic drift is after years of discussion, then telling us that it's wrong anyway isn't just foolish, it's downright laughable. How do you have the balls to do that?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
"Oh, all right then, we'll call it a draw"
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: The argument, again, first describes the trend to reduced genetic diversity through the various mechanisms of evolution that select and isolate new populations, including even most particularly Natural Selection. This trend is NOT normally acknowledged in discussions of evolution, it's always described as mutation plus selection onward and upward through the entire supposed genealogical tree, although when I point it out some here will acknowledge it without acknowledging that it hadn't entered their minds before. I've just picked this out of your rants because you are obviously very impressed with it and think you've discovered some evolutionary dirty truth. I've said before that the fact that the isolation of a small sub-set of a main population reduces genetic diversity in the smaller population (and in the larger one too but to a lessor degree) is a statement of the blindingly obvious. Is there a reason why you think that biologists may not have noticed this? Just so you're clear, you do know that biologists have a name for it and have recognised it as a method of speciation for over 70 years don't you?
In population genetics, the founder effect is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. It was first fully outlined by Ernst Mayr in 1942,[1] using existing theoretical work by those such as Sewall Wright.[2] As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genotypically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species. Founder effect - WikipediaLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024