|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Evolution works inside Ecologies | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Anything observable is microevolution. But do carry on. All observed evolution from one generation to the next is "microevolution" -- the evolution that occurs within each and every breeding population -- and this is the way "microevolution" is defined in science (and what is meant when talking about evolution in breeding populations). All the processes that produce evolutionary change are processes of "microevolution" -- the processes that produce variation/s within breeding populations and the process that continue in daughter populations that become isolated from other populations within an overall species breeding population that lead to reproductive isolation and (divergent) speciation. Again, this is already covered in Message 12. What we are looking for is how the overall ecology reacts to environmental change, and the shifts in selection pressures on the breeding populations within ecologies as they become fragmented (climbing mountains or moving towards the poles). Geographic isolation is bound to occur for many species, or if not for the species themselves then ones they interact with (prey\predator, symbiosis, plant\animal\bacterial, etc). One way to look at it is via invasive species as Herebedragons has mentioned, another is to look at island biogeography. An excellent very readable book on this topic is:
The Song of the Dodo by David Quammen:
quote: Here we have a good introduction to Wallace, Darwin's main competitor in developing his theories of natural selection and speciation. Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia
quote: Biogeography - Wikipedia
quote: And again, we see that global climate change is going to have an effect that can be studied through observations on the changes in biogeographic diversity. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
This is a very interesting thread, thanks. But of course I do have to point out that the evolution you are talking about is nothing but evolution within the Kind or "microevolution" as opposed to your implication that such changes validate the ToE itself. Can you point to differences between closely related species that could not be produced by microevolutionary mechanisms?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Can you point to differences between closely related species that could not be produced by microevolutionary mechanisms? First, "closely related" to you implies genetic relatedness although I believe all that is based on is physical similarities which imply only similar design and not genetic relatedness. No I couldn't point to such diferences, although they may exist; I'd also suspect there may be indicators in the genomes of each Species though I can't point to them either. But the way I've been arguing this is by suggesting that the processes that bring about evolution / microevolution tend toward reduced genetic diversity, so that down any particular line of evolution or variation, theoretically eventually the point is reached similar to the cheetah where genes for major characteristics have become fixed so that further evolution is not possible. It may be that genetic mismatch between the new "species" and the former population may not involve completely fixed loci to that extent for further evolution to have become impossible. This trend is where I locate the end of microevolution such that macroevolution never can occur. It's not by defining the Kind, but the processes that vary the Kind. If they have a natural end as I'm suggesting, that confines evolution within the Kind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
First, "closely related" to you implies genetic relatedness although I believe all that is based on is physical similarities which imply only similar design and not genetic relatedness. I simply mean sharing a large percentage of DNA. This makes it a bit easier to compare sequences, that's all.
But the way I've been arguing this is by suggesting that the processes that bring about evolution / microevolution tend toward reduced genetic diversity, Too bad you can't evidence it. You seem to think that simply saying something carries weight. It doesn't. Evidence carries weight. In the real world, mutations in each generation increase genetic diversity. This is what is evidenced. We also observe that with each generation, the human and chimp genomes continue to diverge, consistent with macroevolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I do think it's intuitively obvious, yes, so that if I describe it clearly enough it should simply be recognized. But I've also proposed tests that could be done. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to do them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I do think it's intuitively obvious, It's wrong.
But I've also proposed tests that could be done. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to do them. Nature has already done the experiments for us. Mutations add diversity to a population over time, and isolated populations will diverge over time. That is what we see in nature.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But if mutations are counted as increased diversity while in fact they don't contribute anything beneficial to the organism the whole thing is being misinterpreted. What you "see in nature," then isn't what you think it is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But if mutations are counted as increased diversity while in fact they don't contribute anything beneficial to the organism They can and do contribute beneficial characteristics. Among the differences between us and chimps are the mutations that have produced beneficial adaptations in humans, such as our increased brain, upright stance with effecient jogging gait, fine motor skills in hands, etc.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Can we get back to ecological change and the effect on the webs of life ?
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Can we get back to ecological change and the effect on the webs of life ? It is all related. For example, a single mutation can lead to the acquisition of antibiotic resistance. This adds to the genetic variability of a population. When antibiotics are introduced to your GI tract, it kills off a ton of competing bacteria. Suddenly, that massive change in environment makes that mutation a windfall. Having Faith outright deny these simple known and understood facts makes it impossible to discuss ecosystems in such a way.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ecological succession - Wikipedia
quote: With global warming we should expect succession like behavior in moving towards more favorable conditions for existing plants that are intolerant of the changes, and this should also result in movement of the species dependent on the vegetation and predators that depend on the ones dependent on the vegetation. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They can and do contribute beneficial characteristics. Among the differences between us and chimps are the mutations that have produced beneficial adaptations in humans, such as our increased brain, upright stance with effecient jogging gait, fine motor skills in hands, etc. Ah Taq, this is precisely what I meant. Mutations are assumed to be the source of beneficial genetic changes. and chimps are assumed to be genetically related to humans, but all you can do is assert the connection the theory prescribes, that you believe in with implicit faith. None of this is proved nor can it be proved. It's pure assumption and must be taken on faith. As I said, if mutations don't contribute anything beneficial to the organism, despite the fact that you claim they do, which is one of the things you have not shown and apparently cannot show, the whole thing falls apart. It WON'T fall apart of course because you guys just go on asserting it no matter what, but it SHOULD fall apart because there is NO -- real, physical -- evidence for any of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Let's take another example: the Galapagos\Darwin finches as studied by the Grants:
Evolution: Library: Finch Beak Data Sheet
quote: The environment changed to dryer conditions, and that affected the plants that were growing, favoring plants with hard seeds. The finches then changed to larger beaks that are better able to break the seeds. So we should expect drought conditions to favor birds with larger beaks as the drought becomes prolonged, as in California. The finches were on an island without competition from other birds, while here on the continent I would expect the change would be reflected in the different frequencies of the species of birds in the area. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Ah Taq, this is precisely what I meant. Mutations are assumed to be the source of beneficial genetic changes. We observe mutations producing beneficial genetic changes. Concluding that the differences between the human and chimp genome are the product of the observed mechanisms of mutation is no different than concluding a fingerprint at a crime scene came from a finger instead of a Leprechaun. No faith involved since we are working from observed mechanisms.
As I said, if mutations don't contribute anything beneficial to the organism We observe that mutations confer beneficial phenotypes. One example that is fitting for this thread is the evolution of dark coats in pocket mice. Just a moment... Here is a picture of the black mice that evolved in an ecosystem that included dark lava, compared to their original ecosystem which was a light colored desert.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As usual, all you are doing is ASSERTING that mutations are the cause of genetic changes. The evidence does not prove that mutation caused any of it, such as the blackness of the pocket mice. All that is necessary is that a normally-occurring recessive allele become paired up [abe]: and prolific in the population under selection pressure, and perhaps there are other genetic routes to the same result, but mutation does not have to be one of them. [/abe] It's the same situation as with the peppered moth. All this is is Mendelian type inheritance. Again you are merely ASSUMING mutation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024