Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
35 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (7 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,132 Year: 22,168/19,786 Month: 731/1,834 Week: 231/500 Day: 59/69 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 46 of 302 (536469)
11-23-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Wounded King
11-23-2009 4:51 AM


Well, I don't think it was incoherent. The point of the hole in the head is that we have to account for ALL forms of living systems through this process if the theory is correct, so we must account for how ears developed, and how new systems will develop in the future. For the theory to make sense, it should make sense from a practical standpoint of how could it happen. So instead of thinking about just disease resistance, think of other body parts, because these can be seen with the naked eye, whereas disease resistant mutations can't be.

Before I expand on that, let me answer your second point.

To re-iterate, the frequency of any specific mutation that produces a protective effect against kuru does not tell us the frequency of all possible mutations producing such a protective effect. So while we could, given enough funding and time, sequence a large enough population to estimate a general rate of occurence that specific protective SNP in populations not exposed to Kuru, it would give us little in the way of worthwhile information. And it certainly isn't neccessary to demonstrate natural selection is in operation.

I disagree; it would give us lots of worthwhile information. If for example this type of protective mutation occurs at a common frequency, then it would not seem so unlikely that the natural selection process could work to drift it into an entire population that does get exposed to kuru, because it would be happening to lots of individuals, and so it wouldn't seem so strange that those who are exposed to it also have a percentage of people with this mutation.

However, if we were to find that this type of protective mutation almost never happens in the general population not exposed to the disease..then we have to start considering whether or not there is a relation between a population that gets the disease and a population that gets the mutation; or at least what the likelihood of the ONE individual who got this protective mutation being a part of the chain of bloodlines of people who actually get the disease. If there is a correlation between where these mutations have occurred, and where the disease exists, we have to consider that maybe it is no longer a random cause and effect situation, but instead something is causing a protective response. That is quite a different story.

So now back to the mutations which we can actually see. let's take the same scenario..an individual gets a mutation, and it continues into a population, until eventually an environmental situation occurs which just so happens to coincide in a beneficial way with the conditions of this mutation. this is ins a sense exactly what the ToE proposes. A random mutation just so happens to have a beneficial effect. Later further mutations in that same bloodline expand upon that first mutation, making it an even better functioning system, or appendage, etc.. The mutations..which may be (likely would be )many generations after the first mutation, in one way or another improve upon this first mutation. Now this is not me saying how it works, this is how Dawkins, and many others all claim it could work...like in his blind watchmakers example. A species gets a light sensitive patch, and then further mutations down the bloodline get a depression in the light sensitive patch which focuses light better, and so on-with each successive mutation being selected for.

So, why is it important to know how often these various types of mutations can happen? Well, because we can then consider the possibility of this actually working in practice.

Now, these kinds of mutations should be visible..after all, they are affecting functioning body parts. So mutations like light sensitive patches of skin, and depression in the skin where a light sensitive patch could focus light better..these are all visible, or at least detectable things. So if these kinds of events are common, then it doesn't seem so strange that eventually a depression in the skin could actually occur right where the light sensitive patch happens to be. After all, if a mutation for a skin depression is common, of course eventually some species which already has a light sensitive patch would likely get the depression all over their body, and eventually one of them would be right exactly on the spot where it can concentrate light better (again, not my theory, Dawkin's' and others).

However, if mutations for skin depression (and these of course must be mutations which effect the DNA and so are inheritable) are not common, then getting a skin depression once in a billion times, but getting it right were it would be beneficial for focusing light better becomes more troublesome. So how can we know how frequent these types of mutations are? Well, we can look at existing populations of species. For example, if an eye first developed in an octopus, how often do octopus get mutations which cause specific depressions in their body which they pass on to their offspring.

Do we see this? Do we see random mutations in octopus which give specific depression-and which are actually part of a mistaken DNA coding? Do they happen everywhere..say in every 10,000 individuals, will one get a depression, somewhere, anywhere. And how about light sensitive patches, are they common? Do you have any friends who have light sensitive patches on their arms because of a genetic mutation? Do Zebras? Do cats? If they are common, why don't we see more of them?

I am guessing that these types of genetic mutations are rare. very very very very rare. So rare in fact, that its not countable. ut even if just very very rare, and not very very very rare..it still makes it even more unlikely that one of the individuals of this bloodline with this light sensitive patch, would ALSO get this rare defect of a depression which could focus light better (and please don't give me the argument about, well, once the first one got the light sensitive patch, many more offspring thousands of years later then also have it, so there were more individuals around who could get the depression-its still going to be a rare occurrence). Its still going to be rare enough that getting the depression EXACTLY where it could actually be useful is again going to be unlikely -IF we are assuming these mutations are simply random.

And its going to be even rarer rarer still that thousands of years after that, another depression is going to come along again in the eye socket region, and not elsewhere, that is going to deepen it further and focus light even better-so much better that those who don't have this new mutation will all die out.

And on and on and on..for every system, every body part, every thing you can think of that makes up a complex organism. And because there are so many millions of parts and systems, these mutations and selections are all happening in tandem. That's A LOT of things to be selecting for!

This is JUST ONE of the MANY problems the ToE has to address before it should expect thinking people to all just accept it as a reasonable explanation in my opinion. Especially, since it seems as you all are showing, that we really can't test this. Don't just say its nonsense..spend time thinking about it.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : spelling..wrote I instead of a

Edited by Bolder-dash, : clarifying individuals to mean those extended offspring of the one who got the mutation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Wounded King, posted 11-23-2009 4:51 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Wounded King, posted 11-23-2009 12:01 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 49 by CosmicChimp, posted 11-23-2009 3:03 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2436 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 47 of 302 (536487)
11-23-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
11-23-2009 9:40 AM


I disagree; it would give us lots of worthwhile information. If for example this type of protective mutation occurs at a common frequency, then it would not seem so unlikely that the natural selection process could work to drift it into an entire population that does get exposed to kuru, because it would be happening to lots of individuals, and so it wouldn't seem so strange that those who are exposed to it also have a percentage of people with this mutation.

However, if we were to find that this type of protective mutation almost never happens in the general population not exposed to the disease..then we have to start considering whether or not there is a relation between a population that gets the disease and a population that gets the mutation; or at least what the likelihood of the ONE individual who got this protective mutation being a part of the chain of bloodlines of people who actually get the disease. If there is a correlation between where these mutations have occurred, and where the disease exists, we have to consider that maybe it is no longer a random cause and effect situation, but instead something is causing a protective response. That is quite a different story.

You continue to ignore my point that the specific mutation is less important than the actual trait, and we can't know all the possible mutations that will give rise to the trait. It isn't as if the G127V mutant is the only protective allele that has been identified (Mead et al., 2003). Without knowing how many othe possible pretctive alles there are your probability value will be meaningless, just like those tornado in a junkyard calculations that IDists/creationists love to throw around for whole functional amino acid sequences like modern proteins assembling themselves de novo.

Do we see this? Do we see random mutations in octopus which give specific depression-and which are actually part of a mistaken DNA coding? Do they happen everywhere..say in every 10,000 individuals, will one get a depression, somewhere, anywhere. And how about light sensitive patches, are they common? Do you have any friends who have light sensitive patches on their arms because of a genetic mutation? Do Zebras? Do cats? If they are common, why don't we see more of them?

You are looking at the wrong organisms. These sort of traits didn't initially arise in large metazoans like zebras or octopi. What we would need to be looking for would be such mutations in primitive metazoans like Amphioxus or ascidians.

You are also assuming that the time scales on which such studies could be conducted is the same as that for the kuru mutant, but while we may have a narrow window for the origin of the G127V allele we have no such window for the evolution of the eye and therefore no reasonable expectation of what any particular frequency would tell us about evolution. Finding no such mutations in an entire population of primitive chordates would not show us that such a mutation was impossible or even prohibitively unlikely.

I'm not even convinced it would be practical to look for such a trait. One paper on a theoretical model for eye evolution was based on steps involving only a 1% change in concavity for the sensitive patch, surely too small for us to reasonably be able to screen a population for (Nilsson and Pelger, 1994)? It is also erroneous to assume that the origin of the depression is a simple coincidence independent of the rest of the structure. If it is rather that tensions generated from the development of the nerve fibres, prefiguring the optic nerve, and the sensitive region affect the morphological development of the region then we might expect the two traits to occur togther much more frequently.

You are making way too many assumptions about how things must have occurred.

I fear that even if your approach is theoretically sound, which I would dispute, it is totally impractical.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-23-2009 9:40 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:38 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Briterican
Member (Idle past 2290 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 48 of 302 (536498)
11-23-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 10:38 PM


Further evidence natural selection drives speciation
From the original post:
Bolder-dash writes:

Ok, so what are these tests which prove (or even provide solid evidence for) natural selection is the driver of evolutionary change?

source date 2006: http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html

The new study – published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.

Yes, I'm avoiding sexual selection. random mutation and other tangential discussions, but it is a relatively recent study that provides evidence along the lines you seek.

Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 10:38 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 306
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 49 of 302 (536517)
11-23-2009 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
11-23-2009 9:40 AM


...
I won't however defer based on your tired and worn out theme of "well you just don't know biology, so you are wrong" argument (I even suggested when I first proposed this topic that this type of defense be excluded, because its simply not saying a dam thing.., but the admin required me to remove that part of my suggestion-although I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to drag it out).

Your problem is that you do not understand basic biology. You should get a basic biology book and read it (read it for comprehension). You have simply waved away all of the pertinent discussion above and made uninformed discussion about new topics. I will remind you that you yourself have made this topic about natural selection and whether or not it has been verified.

This is JUST ONE of the MANY problems the ToE has to address before it should expect thinking people to all just accept it as a reasonable explanation in my opinion. Especially, since it seems as you all are showing, that we really can't test this. Don't just say its nonsense..spend time thinking about it.
Where are you going in this post? Your topic is about natural selection stay on it, review the material that has been presented to you and come back with informed purposeful meaningful questions about the material. If you think you're coming here to preach and tell us about how Darwin was wrong then you sir are an imbecile of the highest magnitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-23-2009 9:40 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 50 of 302 (536533)
11-23-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
11-22-2009 9:43 AM


Re: The evolutionary two-step
Hi RAZD,

RAZD writes:

No, you have one population of breeding individuals with variation in the size of the beaks, from small to large.

How can there be one population if there are 14 different species?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2009 9:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Wounded King, posted 11-23-2009 4:49 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2009 11:24 PM ICANT has responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2436 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 51 of 302 (536539)
11-23-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
11-23-2009 4:18 PM


Re: The evolutionary two-step
Because a lot of 'species' classifications are based on old fashioned morphological or even simply geographic criteris, they aren't base on the actual establishment of reproductive isolation. Therefore what have been identified by taditional methods as distinct 'species' may still be considered to form part of one breeding population due to gene flow between different populations at hybridisation zones.

The Grant's research has identified instances of cross 'species' breeding in only a small number of instances, around 2% of breeding pairs, as such a hybrdisation 'zone'. The reproductive barriers between the species are caused by pre-mating isolation through song type (Grant and Grant, 2008).

This level of hybridisation is put forward by the Grant's as a potential medium for transfer of genetic variation between populations.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 11-23-2009 4:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 52 of 302 (536558)
11-23-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
11-23-2009 4:18 PM


Re: The evolutionary two-step
Hi ICANT,

How can there be one population if there are 14 different species?

You are confusing the number of different species on the different Galapagos Islands, with the observed changes within one species on one island.

Each species is a breeding population defined (originally by geographic isolation) that is reproductively isolated by behavior or infertility. Some of the species occasionally interbreed and produce hybrids, but this is rare, and the different ecologies on the different islands tend to maintain the overall differences.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ninja'd by wounded king


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 11-23-2009 4:18 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 11-24-2009 1:17 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 53 of 302 (536560)
11-24-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 9:04 PM


This is a discussion about natural selection including the mutations that are necessary to drive the selection.

But natural selection does not include the mutations --- you might as well say: "This is a discussion of apples, including oranges". Nor is it correct to say that mutations "drive the selection".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 9:04 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 4:40 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 54 of 302 (536561)
11-24-2009 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by slevesque
11-21-2009 2:21 PM


A better question would be, if natural selection's little brother sexual selection has been tested. I would find that more interesting (because I think we all agree natural selection is a real thing and that it has been tested)

There's the experiments that have been done on guppies: these might interest you. The markings on guppies are subject to natural and sexual selection. When guppies are subject to strong predation, they evolve to match the background --- with fine spots on a finely stippled background, and coarser spots on a coarser background. But when predation is not much of a factor, the male guppies evolve to become more conspicuous, helping them to attract females.

Some details here and here, or just google on guppies and natural selection.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 11-21-2009 2:21 PM slevesque has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 55 of 302 (536566)
11-24-2009 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
11-23-2009 11:24 PM


Re: The evolutionary two-step
Hi RAZD

I hope everything is well on that end of the street.

RAZD writes:

You are confusing the number of different species on the different Galapagos Islands, with the observed changes within one species on one island.

Darwin studied 13 species of finches in the Galapagos.

There is an island about 500 miles away that has one species of finches.

It is assumed that the 13 species on the Galapagos came from one species over millions of years.

But on Cocos Island there is and has been only one species they did not spectate in the same amount of time. Why is that?

The study by the Grants referenced by WK, is a study of 4 species.

So what do these tests show.

They show that the group that gets more food survive and reproduce more offspring.

The amount of food they get is determined by the weather.

So what evolutionary changes does this oscillating back and forth bring about?

Is species still defined as an actually or potentially interbreeding population that does not interbreed with other such populations when there is opportunity to do so? Just checking.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2009 11:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 1:55 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Meldinoor, posted 11-24-2009 2:08 AM ICANT has not yet responded

pandion
Member (Idle past 1341 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 56 of 302 (536568)
11-24-2009 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 9:04 PM


Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Bolder-dash writes:

This is a discussion about natural selection including the mutations that are necessary to drive the selection.


Two huge errors of understanding in a single sentence. Dr. Adequate addressed these in his terse response in message 53. First, natural selection does not "include" mutations. Natural selection acts on genetic diversity without regard to how that diversity came about. Second, it is the environment that drives natural selection.

You need a mutation in order to have varying genetic models to choose from.

Not true. Your third error of understanding. There are several mechanisms of evolution that tend to increase genetic diversity in a population (Mayr specifically discusses four). As far as natural selection is concerned, the source of the genetic diversity is irrelevant. Natural selection is the result of genetic diversity when when acted on by the environment in which an organism lives. Natural selection causes the differential reproductive success of those individuals that are most adapted to the environment. Dr. Adequate, in message 54, gives the example of the guppies that evolve differently in different environments.

Is that hard for you to gather?

It's not hard to gather that you are wrong. All it requires is a little bit of effort to learn the basics. Is that too hard?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 9:04 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 57 of 302 (536570)
11-24-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
11-24-2009 1:17 AM


Re: The evolutionary two-step
It is assumed that the 13 species on the Galapagos came from one species over millions of years.

But on Cocos Island there is and has been only one species they did not spectate in the same amount of time. Why is that?

Ooh, could it be that there are eighteen Galapagos islands and only one Coscos island?

So what evolutionary changes does this oscillating back and forth bring about?

That is the evolutionary change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 11-24-2009 1:17 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3149 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 58 of 302 (536571)
11-24-2009 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
11-24-2009 1:17 AM


Re: The evolutionary two-step
ICANT writes:

But on Cocos Island there is and has been only one species they did not spectate in the same amount of time. Why is that?

Except that the Cocos Island finch is not a true finch. It belongs to the family Thraupidae while true finches belong to the family called Fringillidae. It is in fact a tanager. You are also making the assumption that it has lived on Cocos island for as long as the finches on Galapagos, when for all you know it may be a relatively recent arrival to Cocos (recent being measured in mere centuries). It is closely related to other tanagers on the mainland.

Tanagers do tend to form groups of endemic species, according to wikipedia. I'll leave it to any bird experts to explain why.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

ABE: It looks like Darwin's finches have also been reclassified as tanagers, putting them in the same family as the Cocos Island Finch.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 11-24-2009 1:17 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 59 of 302 (536582)
11-24-2009 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
11-24-2009 12:13 AM


No, your reply is stupid. In fact many of your replies (most, as I have seen) have nothing to say, other than trying to express your own brand of not very interesting glibness.

Natural selection must choose from a variety of different genetic groups. How do we get these different genetic groups if not through mutations?

If you wish to suggest that it is not through genetic mutations, but other forces that create this great diversity, I am certainly willing to entertain your theory. For instance, if you wish to explain how an eye developed through natural selection-please include the entire process. I would be very interested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 12:13 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 7:52 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 60 of 302 (536603)
11-24-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Bolder-dash
11-24-2009 4:40 AM


No, your reply is stupid. In fact many of your replies (most, as I have seen) have nothing to say, other than trying to express your own brand of not very interesting glibness.

And, of course, trying to teach you the very meaning of the words you're throwing about.

A simple "thank you" would have sufficed

Natural selection must choose from a variety of different genetic groups.

And this "choice" is natural selection. The origin of the variation is mutation.

For instance, if you wish to explain how an eye developed through natural selection-please include the entire process. I would be very interested.

It developed through natural selection acting on mutations.

There are two aspects to evolution --- variation and selection. These are distinct in much the same way that the engine of a car is distinct from its steering wheel.

If you wish to discuss evolution at all it is essential that you grasp this very simple distinction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 4:40 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Iblis, posted 11-24-2009 8:34 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 9:05 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 9:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019