|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
My definition of evolution is "LUCK and CHANCE" Aw, sweet. I found a picture of evolution.
See evolution IS real. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
It was my understanding that all parts of a genome are not equally prone to mutations. This is true.
Some areas are quite stable. I think I would put it the other way though, that there are areas that are more unstable or more prone to mutation. There is a sort of baseline mutation rate that most areas have that is simply related to the error rate in the polymerase. But there are regions that are more likely to have errors such as in highly repetitive regions which tends to cause the polymerase to stutter or slip. There are also regions that are prone to damage and the repair mechanisms have a hard time fixing them correctly. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
... which brings me to a new definition of evolution that I' m considering: evolution = biology + the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism The problem is that universal common descent is not a requirement of the ToE. If life was created 6,000 years ago in all its various "kinds", the ToE could theoretically explain how those created organisms changed from the original created species into what they are today. We all agree that species change over time and that there has been diversification since their origins (at least I think we do). The ToE is the theory that explains what forces and factors drive those changes. The problem is that persons, such as yourself, come along and suggest that the ToE is a useless theory because a) it includes universal common descent, b) it's mathematically impossible, and/or c) biological systems are too complex to have evolved. So they want the ToE scrapped for some type of creation or ID theory. However, there is no workable theory that has yet been put forth that could potentially replace the ToE. What people often fail to realize is that scientific disciplines need a framework to operate in. I work with plant pathogens and the interactions they have with their hosts. And although my work doesn't go deep into evolutionary theory, probably more like population genetics, I can't imagine how I would work without the framework that the ToE provides. I would simply have no idea where to proceed. Universal common ancestry is not a requirement of the ToE, it is an implication. If it was discovered that life arose multiple times and rather than a single, large tree, life formed more of a forest of small shrubs, it probably wouldn't change the theory much (though, the ToE would be completely incompatible with life undergoing a severe bottleneck 4,400 years ago and rapidly diversifying from that - even population genetics would be invalid). I understand why you want to propose the definition you are: because universal common ancestry is what you actually object to. But changing the definition of evolution is not the solution. The solution is to provide an alternative theory that better explains the evidence with a multiple origins hypothesis. The bottom line is this: At this point in time, the ONLY thing that will bring the ToE down is an alternative theory that explains the evidence better and makes more reliable and accurate predictions. No amount of definitional shifting, mathematical ciphering or personal incredulity will be capable of convincing scientists to abandon the ToE. The reason: because it works. It works to address all sorts of questions and problems in biology and our knowledge of how it works and how it can be used to address future problems continues to grow rapidly. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
I don't have time right now to get into my own project, but when I can I will describe a bit about what I am doing and how the ToE provides the framework for asking questions and finding answers to those questions. As I said, my project is not really deep, it's rather simple and I expect that you will just dismiss it as working just as well under your model.
In any case, let me offer you a working model as I see it: I commend you on laying out your model, but I wouldn't call it "working" just yet. To illustrate, let me give you a real problem we are working on in our lab (this is not my project, but I will be involved in it somewhat).
Cercospora beticola is a fungal pathogen that infects sugar beet leaves and causes a leaf spot. It can cause defoliation and lead to significant yield loss. The fungus is only known in its anamorphic state (asexual or vegetative growth and reproduction) there is no known teleomorph (sexual stage). However, many populations have equal proportions of mating types (there are 2 mating types and both need to be present to induce teleomorph formation). Equal proportion of mating types is evidence that there is sexual recombination occurring. The teleomorph has never been found on sugar beets even though it has been look for extensively, so if it does exist, it must have an alternate host. So, using your model, how would you approach the problem of discovering what this alternate host would be? Be specific about how you would narrow down the search (this IS a needle in a haystack venture) and what predictions your model would produce.
Depends on what you want to do in your job of course, but I would think something along these lines should be a sufficient guide. It's easy to propose things like this when you don't have to actually test them. I have to apply things I have learned and get results. There is a big difference. So I am asking you to do this thought experiment using just your ideas you have proposed just to see what it's like. HBD Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
And I can't imagine how the ToE would give you a lead on this either. I'm not asking you to imagine that, I am asking how you would approach a real problem such as this using your model.
None of this so far suggests anything crucially about your ToE model or mine either. This isn't really a matter of there being a right or wrong answer, it's just to get you to think about the framework involved when you approach a simple problem. This is really a fairly simple example, its not deeply complicated (it is a needle in a haystack situation, though). The approach I would take is fairly straight forward, but there are some underlying assumptions and hypotheses that are based on the model or framework I am using and I am just asking that you use your model to inform your assumptions and hypotheses.
I'm not completely sure what your project is trying to do. You want to find the host of this teleomorph, which is related to the fungus that eats beet leaves though it doesn't eat beet leaves itself. Fungi are strange organisms to be sure. The anamorph (asexual) and teleomorph (sexual) are the same organism, just different life stages and those life stages can have different hosts that they grow on. Here is an image of a generalized fungal life cycle for reference:
(teleomorph on the left; anamorph on the right) Typically when you think of fungi you picture the mushroom stage, but that is only a small part of the life cycle.
Presumably your ultimate aim is to stop the asexual fungus from eating the beet leaves, but how knowing the habits of this sexually reproducing type will help with that, since it doesn't eat beet leaves, is escaping me. The question involves the source of inoculum (the spores or structures that cause infection). We have infections in the field that are not always consistent with asexual spore production, but seem to be more like what we would expect with the sexual spores. Without going into too much more detail, we want to know where the inoculum is coming from. I don't think its necessary to know much more about the system (although fungi are fascinating ). The main point is just to think about how you would apply your model to a real situation and what your underlying assumptions are and how you justify those assumptions. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
There is no need to invoke the theory of evolution for common sense predictions. Common sense is not really a scientific strategy, is it? Things that seem obvious at first turn out to be not so obvious after all. Organisms that we once thought were closely related are now found to be not so. In fact, fungi are a really great example of this; Fungi used to be included in the kingdom Plantae, but now we find out they are more like animals than plants. So, "common sense" is not that great of a strategy. Besides, I did not "invoke" the ToE. I asked Faith to apply her proposed theory to the problem.
My thought on this is that we initially expect organisms to behave like similar organisms. So why do you expect this and how would you determine what "similar organisms" are? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
The simple counter-intuitive still remains that gravity does not treat objects of different weights any differently! The "common sense" answer that gravity treats objects of different weights differently is wrong! A minor technical quibble, since I know exactly what you mean. And I could be wrong (physics is not my strong suit by any means) but... Gravity DOES treat objects of different mass differently that is why different masses have different weights. Gravity applies more force to a more massive object that to one of lesser mass. That is why the fact that they accelerate equally is so counter-intuitive. The more force you apply to an object the faster it should accelerate, that is the "common sense" prediction. But common sense often fails and can not be trusted to draw scientific conclusions. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
You seem to be implying that you can build and fly aircraft without understanding aerodynamics. Which is true to a point, right. You don't really have to know why a wing is shaped like it is in order to build one. But you couldn't do it without all the work people put into laying the foundation for such things, which allows you to just do the "applied" work. I think this is a really good analogy. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024