Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 187 of 248 (496519)
01-28-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by AlphaOmegakid
01-28-2009 4:01 PM


The Kid!
Welcome back, man!
AlphaOmegakid writes:
1. Death by mutation
2. Disease by mutation
But, not all mutations lead to death or disease.
I just read a paper called "A case study of evolutionary computation of biochemical adaptation" (links to the abstract: I'm not sure if the full text is freely available to the public): it's an interesting article about a mathematical simulation (which I don't even pretend to understand) that supports the plausability of transitional fitness.
Here's a snippit of the abstract:
quote:
We create random gene networks numerically, by linking genes with interactions that model transcription, phosphorylation and protein-protein association. We define a fitness function for adaptation in terms of two functional metrics, and show that any reasonable combination of them will yield the same adaptive networks after repeated rounds of mutation and selection. Convergence to these networks is driven by positive selection and thus fast. There is always a path in parameter space of continuously improving fitness that leads to perfect adaptation...
Or, in other words, mutation and natural selection can drive a gradual sequence of character states, each one of which is "fit," towards an optimum within a reasonable time frame. They also seem to imply that the end-state is predictable, and ScienceDaily latches on to that concept.
I'd be interested in your comments on this research.
-----
AlphaOmegakid writes:
3. Sex
Do you mean, by this, that sex prevents two species from interbreeding? How does this stop one kind from turning into two kinds, though, especially when both daughter kinds use reproductive parts that are still physically compatible with the opposite parts of the parent kind?
-----
AlphaOmegakid writes:
4. Speciation
I don't know what you mean by this. Speciation prevents the emergence of new kinds?
-----
AOkid writes:
5. Protein folding - this may come under disease or death.
I'd like to hear a bit more about this. I remember you having discussed it before, and it came up in an undergrad review I did about bears, but I don't know a great deal about it yet. What problem do you think this causes for trans-baraminal evolution?
-----
AOkid writes:
6. Genetic capacity
I think "genetic capacity" is almost total nonsense (even though I'm not in a position to make a ruling on genetics). However, I am fully willing to be convinced otherwise with solid evidence.
Edited by Bluejay, : Two-word addition.
Edited by Bluejay, : "Also" and "too" are redundant.
Edited by Bluejay, : Rewording (undid first two edits in the process)
Edited by Bluejay, : I needed an even number of edits.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-28-2009 4:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 219 of 248 (496793)
01-30-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by IchiBan
01-29-2009 10:48 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Hi, IchiBan.
Let me try to clarify this a little bit.
Change happens.
We know this: we have seen it happen. We have seen it happen in populations. We know that no individual has exactly the same genome as either of its parents, but rather, has a unique blending of the two parental genomes. We also know that there are many ways in which new changes are introduced into the genome.
This is a known, documented fact.
And, this is what we call "evolution" (or "microevolution," if you prefer).
It happens. We know it happens.
So, what do you expect from a population that has existed for many, many, many generations? Many, many, many changes, right? Because populations change over time, increasing the amount time increases the amount of change, yeah?
This is what we call a "null hypothesis." A null hypothesis is an explanation that holds true when nothing else is acting on the system. Then, we test all kinds of "alternate hypotheses," which are the "somethings else" that might be acting on the system, and, if a test uncovers no evidence for the alternate, we retain the null hypothesis as our explanation.
If you were to find something else that was acting on the system, we would have reason to question the universality of evolution. But, since no one has yet presented a "something else" that passes scientific testing, Coyote has no choice but to uphold the null hypothesis.
So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by IchiBan, posted 01-29-2009 10:48 PM IchiBan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2009 8:58 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 221 of 248 (496893)
01-31-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by xongsmith
01-30-2009 8:58 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Hi, Xongsmith. Welcome to EvC!
xongsmith writes:
Bluejay writes:
So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away.
...mmmmm....not quite the way i would have phrased that. it might be ok for the purpose here, but leaves a big "pounce" spot for creationists.
You have a problem with creationists trying to do real science?
I'll have to disagree with you: I mean, what's the worst that could happen? They'll claim that they have scientific evidence against evolution? If they really do, we'll surely benefit from the new knowledge we gain. But, if they really don't, nothing will have changed.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread was to see if creationists would propose a mechanism that prevents evolution from creating distinct "kinds" from a single lineage.
-----
(P.S. I don't think the admins are going to worry too much about all lower case when you punctuate and write in legible English otherwise: they're pretty strict, but they're not unreasonably anal)

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2009 8:58 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2009 8:36 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 227 of 248 (497004)
01-31-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by xongsmith
01-31-2009 8:36 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Hi, Xongsmith.
xongsmith writes:
Yes, I would have a problem with Creationists trying to do real science.
I think everybody should try it at least once: science isn't just for the elite, it's for anyone who's willing to work for it.
-----
xongsmith writes:
i think you need to emphasize that the first "kind" has to be a manymanymanymanymany,many times over the ancestor of the second "kind".
Well, okay... creationists generally accept that extinct animals like trilobites and dinosaurs were unique "kinds," and most on this forum in particular realize that evolution doesn't entail a modern organism turning into another modern organism, so I didn't feel the necessity to push too hard in that direction.
-----
xongsmith writes:
perhaps you had an ulterior motive to get them all to go off somewhere and eagerly run this experiment to test the hypothesis, an experiment that takes infinity, just to get them out of the way and off our backs?
Shhh!
What are you trying to do, man? It'll never work if you go and tell them what we're up to.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2009 8:36 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024