|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question on how Evolution works to produce new characteristics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
I am confused about all the information on evolution, creation and intelligent design. Hence I joined this forum to post this question.
First to clarify evolution, I would like someone to tell me how evolution is explained in the following hypothetical scenario. There is a green frog population in an isolated island. All frogs are green in this population and they have been living fine in their green environment for ages. An alien species of plants invades their environment and the environment starts to change. Now, the frogs are no longer camouflaged in this environment. A bit of orange speckling on their green skin will, however, do the job of camouflaging wonderfully. But there is not a single orange speckled frog so far in this island population. Can someone explain to me how evolution will work to make the frogs survive? Will orange speckled frogs be the dominant variety of frogs in this island at a later time? Thanks in advance. Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
"There are undoubtedly already members of this frog population with a hint of orange speckles. These members would have an advantage over the other members, and over time will become the dominant trait in the population."
Thanks Taz and subbie. My question is, if the frogs with the hint of an orange speckling survive more and make this the dominant trait of the population, will it not be a response to a 'felt need'? (Lmarkism?) If the froggies on the other hand go extinct, will it not be because they could not respond to the 'felt need'? The 'felt need' being getting themselves orange speckled. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Thanks guys.
Two questions arise in my mind. 1. Why do you say this -- orange speckling -- isn't Lamarkism? 2. If orange speckling, by chance, occurs due to a single mutation on a single frog, will it be capable of making this the dominant trait of the colony over time? Is this how evolution works? I mean by the chance mutation of a favourable trait on a single organism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. But ...
The often quoted example of Lamarkism is the elongation of a giraffe's neck. Now, the giraffe did not 'learn' how to have a long neck. But this is Lamarkism. How is the orange speckling of the froggies any different? Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Thanks guys for your input. I am enjoying this.
Dr Adequate has summed it up. So I will take one of his statements.
So if (a) such mutations are possible at all (b) the species doesn't go extinct, then given long enough we will indeed end up with a population of speckled frogs. If this is so, how do you explain living fossils?Do they not mutate? It cannot be that their environment did not change. So, if they mutate and if their environment changes, why are they the same? Isn't natural selection a 'creative force?'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Thanks Dr Adequate for the pictures.
Firstly, recognise that living fossils are the exception, not the rule. Why would there be any exceptions to blind selection?Natural selection is blind with no direction or purpose. So the exceptions have direction and purpose? Last I checked, fossils are dead. You must have seen them before some were resurrected.
Chances are that this coelacanth species has changed very little over the last 60 million years since it moved to these deeper waters. My question is coelacanth is not the only species that live in deep water. If the other species have changed, why has it not changed? Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
No-one said that they were exceptions to natural selection. Then what are they exceptions to? ................................................................. I am no biologist and my knowledge on evolution is pretty basic. I am probably talking more out of common sense. We have some organisms that have not changed very much -- living fossils -- and we have other organisms that have shown remarkable change in a relatively short period of time. If we MUST apply the same theory to explain them both -- evolution -- I think there is something that I do not follow here. And when i ask, you say the living fossils are the exceptions. I thought they were exceptions to natural selection for I could not think of anything else. If they are exceptions because natural selection applies in an exceptional way, when we talk of living fossils, it does not make sense to me. How do you apply the same theory to explain the living fossil and the monkey?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
But rather than think about such quasi-metaphorical descriptions in the first place, ... Why not?The 'quasi-metaphorical' terms are not false. They are not projecting anything the way it should not be projected. And I think I fully understand these terms. So why can't I use them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Yes. The environmeent of the one species might not have changed much at all It is hard to believe that tuataras and other reptiles lived in the same habitat and yet, the tuataras did not change but the other reptiles did.
They are exceptions to what we "normally" see. Okay.But if natural selection is a creative force that is blind, has no purpose or direction, why do some organisms change and some do not? I think there should be no exceptions because NS is BLIND. ............
If you reply to a post it is better to use the "reply" button on the bottom right of the post you are replying to. This will make it easier to track your replies and will also send an e-mail notification to the person you replied to. Makes sense.All my replies appear at the bottom of the page irrespective of the button I clicked. So I did not bother. I probably must have mostly clicked the reply button of the last reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
"all-seeing?"
This is interesting.Please explain. I'm just giving you some free advice. It's better to try to understand natural selection, or any other aspect of nature, by thinking carefully about what it actually does. Well, thank you very much.I thought that's what I am truing to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
So long as they're well-camouflaged from predators (green on a green background) natural selection will act to keep them that way --- it's a force for stasis, I think I understood the explanation.Just that it does not make sense to me because we are not talking of organisms from a different planet. The living fossils and the rest of the organisms on this planet have lived and continue to live through more or less similar environmental conditions.They both mutate. Its not that the LFs have a low incidence of mutations. I would think they should both show similar degrees of evolution. But we know they don't. So ... Random mutations and natural selection after all do not adequately explain evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Then there is of course also the possibilities that they went on to specialize and fill different niches. The tuataras are well enough adapted to survive in their own niche, yet other reptiles found another niche where they could prosper better, and so, adapted to that particular niche. Think about it as lions and zebras, both inhabit the same environment, but fill very different niches. Well, well, well.This is almost like a story now. Not that a story is unacceptable. But that it is not scientific. Bottom line is ...We have organism A (a living fossil) We also have organism B (a regular animal. Say a monkey) A has not changed for 100 million years.B's ancestors' lives if traced to 100 million years will show fifteen or more species. We are asked to explain this.So we have to do something. The only rational explanation is to say what you all have been saying: That A's environment did not PROBABLY change that much and that there was no real evolutionary pressure for A to change. Anything else will not make sense. Sorry to say this, but the above explanation does not make sense to me.
It's not really a creative force. If it is not a creative force, how do you explain the existence of human beings form something that started as unicellular organisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hi RAZD
The reason that "living fossil" appear not very changed is that natural selection kept them in a fit ecology. Well, fine.My question is why the LFs only? And not everything else? Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Imagine two islands both with green frogs amongst green leaves. Then your orange-spotted vegetation invades one island but not the other. One bunch of frogs will stay the same, the other will change. Different environmental pressures, different results. This is not a difficult concept. Not at all. The concept is easy to understand. The difficulty lies not in understanding the concept. But to make sense of it. You are saying my green froggies will survive as green froggies for 200 million years if their environment remains green and provided everything else is also the same for them. That is fine. I understand this. Suppose we have 2 identical islands with green frogs. What I do not understand is if alien plants can invade one island with green frogs and force them to change and ultimately speciate, why would I think the other island with green froggies can be out of reach for such changes? If you say this island is not invaded by alien plants for another 100 years, that is believable. But when you say for 200 million years, no alien plants invaded that island and that is why the froggies of that island are green, it becomes too much of a stretch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Hi RAZD
Logically this means that the result is not, cannot be, dependent on the ability of the population of organisms to evolve, but rather on the external factors that affect the opportunities and selection of the populations of organisms for fitness to different ecologies. Logically, it is also difficult o believe that for one population the environment is more or less the same for millions of years. Now Huntard will say this is an argument from incredulity. lol
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024