|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution - recent examples? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
well how would a new species some how be the result of that? New species ("speciation") result when natural selection operates in a situation of reproductive isolation, where a sub-group is split off from the main population. In this situation, because of the lack of gene flow between groups, the sub-group "drifts" genetically from the original population until cross-breeding ceases to be possible. At that point we have a new species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
If its due to drift is it therefore natural selection? Or are you using 'drift' in a different context?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If its due to drift is it therefore natural selection? As far as I know, genetic drift is not selective. As far as I know, genetic drift is a change in allele frequencies as a result of the randomizing effect of sexual reproduction. The effect on the gene pool is generally less than selection, but in the absence of a selection pressure, sometimes genetic drift alone is enough to cause speciation between two isolated populations. Oh, wait. I see what you're asking. Yeah, I wasn't referring to genetic drift per se, but rather, the accumulation of genetic differences between gene pools, whatever the cause. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-26-2004 02:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
But when you use the phrase "'drifts' genetically", you can see where the confusion can arise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I don't think its that weird; it is indeed possible for an organism to evolve in a way that makes it overly dependant on a prevailing environmental feature. Arguably, the panda being only sexually receptive 3 days in the year and being dependant on one foodstuff of an example. Fitness in the short term is not always fitness in the long term. This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-28-2004 09:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
In Princteon Univ Press 2oo#;Niche Construction The Neglected Process in Evolution, Odling-Snee, Laland, and Feldman under the rubric of a concept named, "phenogenotype" write symbols for a general environment/organism interactivity in chapter SIX (not five), "There genotypes and two cultural states can be found in six possible combinations, or phenogenotypes(A more detailed discussion of the phenogenotype concept can be found in chapter 9), namely AAE, AAe, AaE, Aae, aaE, aae, which have fitnesses w_ij (given in table 6.2). We shall use p to denote the frequency of allele A, and x for that of state E."""
I found however, contra the simple attempt in the book to relate this notion to "ecosystem engineering" that bridging the math and the kinematics (involved) remands a JUDGEMENT of Kant's caliber. They did not do this bur relied on psychology and anthropology where I still ONLY find physics and chemistry!! What IS wierd is that I was told to FIX this psychiatrically where it is clear that no individual human could compelte the populations' task even if it was not artifical but failure to trace the human invetion led to failure to find that other creatures can be deceptive in the same sense that Kant better Hume's journey of cause and effect PAST a river!! So handgernaids and horseshows on are grounded for Bra's behavior@@.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
More example of macro-evolution, of speciation (very detailed, showing exactly what the mutation is):
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm And a bunch others:http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html Also look at the tread on ring species elsewhere here:http://EvC Forum: Ring species as evidence for speciation -->EvC Forum: Ring species as evidence for speciation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
Hi folks, I haven't posted here in a while because I got a bit sick of the evolution/creation debate, but I've just installed the BBCode extension to my firefox browser, and decided to try it out. I also have a blog, Vapid Rants, where I might talk about evolution/creation once in while, I haven't decided yet.
But back to the thread:A very good example of evolution in the laboratory (at least I think so) is the story of Chlorella vulgaris: quote: quote: quote: "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Great post, RR. That's one of my favorite examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
Thank you for the compliment, Crashfrog. It is also my favorite example, as it shows an entire new family being created, and is thus harder to discount as being an example of macroevolution.
"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: It fits within the scientific definition of macroevolution, no doubt there. However, as I am sure you already figured out, it will never be deemed macroevolution among creationists. This is the beauty, if you will, of creationists never defining what constitutes macroevolution. Instead, they apply it in an ad hoc nature which allows them to deny macroevolution no matter what. You would think that a unicellular organism becoming multicellular would be classified as macroevolution, but I would bet that none of the creationist would agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
Yeah, I know, they'll either redefine it or simply ignore it, as it always happens in these discussions. That's why I don't participate in evo/cre discussions that much anymore, it's always just a rehash of old fallacies by people who don't even understand evolution (I cringe whenever I hear someone define evolution a la Hovind). The ignorance and stupidy in these arguments just makes me depressed and disgusted, which is why I lost faith in humanity. Well, that and meeting a genuine geocentrist. Never underestimate human stupidity.
This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-01-2004 04:24 PM "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Loudmouth writes:
You can't really blame them though. Most of them lack the education background to even know the significance and differences between unicellular and multicellular life forms. To the creationists, those little creatures are the same thing as all other microscopic organisms. This is the reason why I have been depressed for the last 3 weeks or so, knowing that there are people that chose to go down the path of ignorance rather than the path of enlightenment. You would think that a unicellular organism becoming multicellular would be classified as macroevolution, but I would bet that none of the creationist would agree. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I can blame them, though. They (creos on debate boards) claim that they have enough scientific knowledge to overturn one of the longest standing and most well supported theories in biology. If they claim to have such an understanding, then they have opened the door for critiques of their understanding and an in-depth criticism of their evidence. They bring this onto themselves by trumpeting their supposed superior reasoning over what they claim are misguided materialistic athiests. Too often they bite off more than they can chew, but that doesn't seem to stop them. Given the average creationists understanding of both scienctific evidence and scientific methodology, I am relieved that creationists make up such a small minority of practicing scientists. Creationists are to science what kindergarten finger painters are to Art.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
quote:Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be that creationists are people who fake money by making color-xeroxes of it (Hovind at al) and the people who gullibly accept that money and are indignant when the money printers tell them that it's not real money. "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024