Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 4:02 AM
32 online now:
caffeine, Meddle, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,983 Year: 9,019/19,786 Month: 1,441/2,119 Week: 201/576 Day: 4/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   is the advancement of macro evolution without hick up?
SHEKINAH
Junior Member (Idle past 3304 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 09-22-2008


Message 1 of 41 (548368)
02-27-2010 4:47 AM


If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:20 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 10:25 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 02-27-2010 1:54 PM SHEKINAH has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2010 3:04 PM SHEKINAH has not yet responded
 Message 9 by lyx2no, posted 02-27-2010 3:48 PM SHEKINAH has not yet responded
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2010 4:15 PM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2 of 41 (548380)
02-27-2010 8:22 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the is the advancement of macro evolution without hick up? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
DC85
Member
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 3 of 41 (548392)
02-27-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SHEKINAH
02-27-2010 4:47 AM


it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance?
The same way the "microevolutionary" process does.These changes are happening to the entire population as these very small changes add up you end up with new species.

You agree "microevoultion" happens correct?

These small mutations are too small to cause problems with reproduction and over time these small changes add up. Evolution doesn't happen in jumps. One population is cut off from the other and the entire new population evolves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SHEKINAH, posted 02-27-2010 4:47 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 4 of 41 (548393)
02-27-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SHEKINAH
02-27-2010 4:47 AM


We Are All Mutants
Hi Shekinah,

Let's take a look at your analysis;

If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule).

Well... that's almost true. Hybrid animals are usually, but not always, sterile. For reference, there is a list of some animal hybrids here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ogy%29#Examples_of_hybrid_animals

Note that many are fertile.

If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile.

That's just not correct. A mutation is simply a novel DNA sequence. A "mutant" is an organism that has DNA sequences that did not originate with either parent. Generally the term "mutant" is only used to refer to those individuals whose mutation has caused them to differ noticeably from the rest of their population. Strictly speaking though, all of us are mutants, on average we have about two or three novel mutations, DNA sequences that were not present in our parents. These are the result of DNA copying errors that take place during the production of sex cells (meiosis).

Mutations do not usually prevent reproduction. Most mutations are neutral and have no effect. Since the rest of your argument follows on from this error, I would say that I have answered your questions; mutations do not usually make organisms sterile.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SHEKINAH, posted 02-27-2010 4:47 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 3:18 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 5 of 41 (548407)
02-27-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SHEKINAH
02-27-2010 4:47 AM


SHEKINAH writes:

If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.


I'll explain this in a non-biological way with the hope that you will honestly try to understand what evolution really is.

Imagine yourself living in Los Angeles, CA. One day you decide to walk eastward. If you keep walking and walking, step by step, eventually you will reach Las Vegas. If you keep walking in the east direction, you will eventually reach Chicago. If you're persistent enough, you will reach New York. You then realizes that it just took you 2 years to walk from California to New York. Note: Look up thefatmanwalking on google search.

Of course it is ridiculous to say that you took a step from Los Angeles to Los Vegas. It is also equally ridiculous to say that you took one single step from Las Vegas to Chicago and another step to go from Chicago to New York. There are many steps in between and it took you a long long time.

Among biologists, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution as far as the mechanics go. Micro evolution happens. This is a fact. There is no dispute about this. We observe it everyday. Macro evolution when you add up all the micro evolution that happened over long periods of time.

Looking back at the walking example, you can have two different terms to describe the same thing. We can say that you taking a step is called micro stepping. Adding up all your micro steppings and you end up with macro steppings, from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, from Las Vegas to Chicago, and from Chicago to New York. Again, it requires many steps in between to get from one such location to another.

And just like walking, macro evolution requires many many many many mutations and micro evolutions.

I used walking to demonstrate to you how evolution works because walking is the simplest parallel I can think of. Now that hopefully you've understood the basics of it, let me point to you a more direct parallel.

The evolution of language is a direct parallel to the evolution of life. All modern day romance languages originated from one single language: ancient Latin. The famous romance language you might recognize are French, Spanish, and Italian. At this point, you might ask yourself how these languages could be related. And it's even harder to imagine that at one point in time all these languages were one language. Small "mutations" of words and phrases over very long periods of time eventually isolated certain groups from each other. They once all spoke ancient Latin and now they speak many languages.

The changes that occur in the evolution of language are so small that isolation between populations happens very gradually. An Australian and an American, while having different accents and different phrases for certain expressions, if isolated from each other for thousands of years, will likely result in different languages all together, just like how ancient Latin resulted in all the romance languages we have today.

So, to sum it up, your questions make no sense at all because that's simply not how evolution works. What you call macro evolution is simply the accumulation of very minute changes in biological life over vast amounts of time (eons). Whole populations evolve, not individuals. In fact, if you had taken high school biology you would know that that's the first thing they teach you. The smallest unit that could evolve is a population. Individuals can't evolve.

Hope that helps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SHEKINAH, posted 02-27-2010 4:47 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 6 of 41 (548412)
02-27-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SHEKINAH
02-27-2010 4:47 AM


You are being confused by a naive idea of species. You are implicitly taking "is the same species as" to be what mathematicians would call a transitive relation like "has the same number of legs as". So if Adrian has the same number of legs as Beth who has the same number of legs as Charles who has the same number of legs as Dawn who has the same number of legs as Edward who has the same number of legs as Francine, who has the same number of legs as George who has the same number of legs as Heidi, then it follows that Adrian has the same number of legs as Heidi.

But a relation does not have to be transitive. Consider the relation "lives in the same neighborhood as". It is perfectly possible for Adrian to live in the same neighborhood as Beth, who lives in the same neighborhood as Charles who lives in the same neighborhood as Dawn who lives in the same neighborhood as Edward who lives in the same neighborhood as Francine who lives in the same neighborhood as George who lives in the same neighborhood as Heidi --- and yet for Adrian and Heidi to live in different neighborhoods.

"Is the same species as" is a relation of the second kind. One can see this by considering that for two organisms to be the same species, they do not have to have identical genomes, just genomes in the same "genetic neighborhood", as it were.

---

About the evolution of sex --- there are organisms which can either reproduce sexually or asexually. Anlso, there are organisms which can reproduce asexually or in a manner that involves lateral gene transfer, which may be considered a more primitive form of sex.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SHEKINAH, posted 02-27-2010 4:47 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2805 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 7 of 41 (548414)
02-27-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Granny Magda
02-27-2010 10:25 AM


Re: We Are All Mutants
Hi Granny,

I don't know where you got your numbers. But humans have between 300-600 point mutations (Edit: actually 100-300) per person per generation. Add to that all the other types of mutations and you have more then ''two three novel mutations ... not present in our parents''.

Also every mutations has an effect, even if it is very very very small. So truely neutral mutations don't exist.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 10:25 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Meldinoor, posted 02-27-2010 3:23 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:08 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 20 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 5:33 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Stagamancer, posted 02-27-2010 10:00 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 22 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:20 PM slevesque has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2973 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 8 of 41 (548417)
02-27-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by slevesque
02-27-2010 3:18 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
slevesque writes:

Also every mutations has an effect, even if it is very very very small. So truely neutral mutations don't exist.

Nonsense. DNA is a very degenerate code, where the same amino acids can be written in several ways. Glycine for example can be written using codons:

GGA, GGC, GGG or GGU

They all make glycine. So what is the effect of a point mutation changing GGA to GGU?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

------------------------ABE----------------------------------

PS. To provide some appreciation for how degenerate DNA is, it specifies only 20 amino acids, and one stop codon, while providing 64 different codon to specify these.

PPS. Mutations that do not cause a different amino acid to be produced are called "synonymous substitutions" or silent mutations.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 3:18 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:10 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 4:13 PM Meldinoor has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 9 of 41 (548420)
02-27-2010 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SHEKINAH
02-27-2010 4:47 AM


Ring Species
And there is a place where Dr. Adequate's neighborhood meets evolution: the ring species. Here, the Greenish Warbler on the clockwise end of the ring is P.t. Plumbeitarsus; on the other is P.t. Obscuratus.

They so differ from each the other that they do not mate. P.t. Plumbeitarsus will, however, mate with their neighbor, P.t. Viridanus, who will mate with their neighbor, P.t. Luplowi, who will mate with their neighbor, P.t. Trochiloides, who will mate with their neighbor, the afore mentioned P.t. Obscuratus.

P.t. Barnum is even more distantly related.



AbE:

Meldinoor

I think I read something, somewhere, sometime that synonymous substitutions produce the same protein though at a different rate altering the timing of downstream reactions. And timing is of the essence. But don't quote me.

2AbE:

OK, in light of what Mr. Jack said, quote me.

Edited by lyx2no, : AbE.

Edited by lyx2no, : 2AbE.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SHEKINAH, posted 02-27-2010 4:47 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 10 of 41 (548425)
02-27-2010 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by slevesque
02-27-2010 3:18 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
I don't know where you got your numbers. But humans have between 300-600 point mutations per person per generation. Add to that all the other types of mutations and you have more then ''two three novel mutations ... not present in our parents''.

I'm pretty sure you're out by a factor of about 100 on these numbers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 3:18 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 4:12 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 11 of 41 (548426)
02-27-2010 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Meldinoor
02-27-2010 3:23 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
They all make glycine. So what is the effect of a point mutation changing GGA to GGU?

The tRNAs needed to translate GGA to glycine or GGU to glycine exist in differing quantities; altering the code can alter the expression rate of proteins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Meldinoor, posted 02-27-2010 3:23 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peepul, posted 03-02-2010 6:43 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2805 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 12 of 41 (548427)
02-27-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Jack
02-27-2010 4:08 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
It was by memory, it's 100-300 actually.

I remembered the 300 but didn't remember if it was the upper or lower limit, my bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:08 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:20 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2805 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 13 of 41 (548429)
02-27-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Meldinoor
02-27-2010 3:23 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
See what Mr. Jack said.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Meldinoor, posted 02-27-2010 3:23 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Meldinoor, posted 02-28-2010 12:32 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 14 of 41 (548430)
02-27-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SHEKINAH
02-27-2010 4:47 AM


That's NOT how new species occur
Hi SHEKINAH, and welcome to the fray.

Let me add something that has not been covered in the other responses.

... If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? ...

This is not how new species are formed.

This is not how macroevolution occurs.

Wherever you got this information from, it is wrong, you have not been given correct information on how evolution works. I suggest that you discard all you think you know about evolution and start over, using sources from science, such as

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

Evolution is a process that occurs continuously in all known species of living organisms, and it is the change in proportions of the hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.

Mutations are differences in genes produced during reproduction within breeding populations, and these can harm the new organism, have no effect on it, or improve it's ability to survive and breed. You have many mutations that your parents did not have in their original DNA used in the process of reproduction to create you.

Natural selection means that those organisms that are better able to survive and breed within a breeding population pass on more hereditary traits than organisms that do not do so well at survival or breeding. Over time this will cause a shift in the proportion of hereditary traits available within the population.

If a part of a species (defined as a breeding population) moves into a new habitat, leaving the remaining members of the species population in the previous habitat, then there will be different ecological opportunities due to:

(1) the habitat is different in it's ability to provide nourishment,
(2) the predators\prey relationships of the ecosystem will be different,
(3) the mutations that occur in the breeding members of the sub-population in the new habitat will be different from the mutations that occur in the breeding members of the sub-population in the old habitat,
(4) these mutations may, or may not, provide a benefit to the organisms in the habitat they inhabit, and
(5) the mutations in the sub-populations may not be shared with the other sub-populations due to isolation mechanisms.

If the reproductive isolation is complete enough, the different sub-populations will evolve in different ways, and can reach the point where they are not able to breed with the other sub-population.

This is what has occurred with horses, donkeys and zebras -- they all are descendants of an ancestor equine population, but have evolved in slightly different ways to the point where hybrid offspring are usually sterile.

This is the point at which new species are formed: when the daughter populations can no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring. After this point has been reached, each daughter species is free to evolve in different ways and become more divergent from the other daughter species over time.

This is macroevolution. Evolution plus time.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


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 1 by SHEKINAH, posted 02-27-2010 4:47 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 15 of 41 (548431)
02-27-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
02-27-2010 4:12 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
Hmm... it rather depends whether you're referring to simple changes in DNA, or concentrating on protein-coding genes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 4:12 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 4:24 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019