|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do "novel" features evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm trying to keep beliefs out of it, sorry Pressie. I'm interested in the Science of it right now and classification and how and why classify the way we do and how I can possibly come up with a definition of "kinds" that can be worked into a scientific hypothesis for Creation. Well, the creationist idea of a kind is a clade which is not contained inside another clade. Put another way, a kind is a group of species such that (a) a creationist will admit that they're related (b) the creationist won't admit that anything outside that group is related to anything inside that group. This varies, of course, from creationist to creationist. Determining the limits of kinds is difficult, for two reasons. The first is that while creationists are otherwise happy to lump species together, and will talk with a fine freedom of "the dinosaur kind" or "the beetle kind", they nonetheless want humans to be a different kind from chimps. Now, how do you come up with genetic or morphological criteria that will split humans from chimps but allow you to lump together dinosaurs, or beetles --- or even Felidae? The second problem is this. All the scientific methods that unite a clade that they want to be a kind (e.g. Felidae) would also unite clades they don't want to be a kind (e.g. Carnivora). There is no non-arbitrary place to stop; the creationist who has happily been using molecular phylogeny up to that point just has to exclaim: "Now that's going too far, because I don't believe that!" (And again, what a creationist finds acceptable will vary from case to case.) There is no non-arbitrary point at which one can say "Now I'm going to stop believing the results of the methods which have suited me fine up until now." --- Addendum: actually, there is one non-arbitrary place to stop, which is to identify kinds with the Biological Species Concept. The trouble is that that splits kinds up rather fine. The idea of "kinds" was invented to explain how Noah fitted everything onto the Ark, and if you go with the B.S.C. then it's really not that much use. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Yeah, this does seem to be the problem. That's why I said maybe the best route to go would be defining "kinds" with the differences in mind, rather than the similarities.
It's the only way around the chimp to man scenerio I think, speaking from a Creationist perspective of course. I looked up the definition of kinds and the most recent (I think) definition of kinds on Creationist websites and it seems to cover a broad spectrum of species as opposed to just clades or taxonomic catagorties.
Addendum: actually, there is one non-arbitrary place to stop, which is to identify kinds with the Biological Species Concept. The trouble is that that splits kinds up rather fine. The idea of "kinds" was invented to explain how Noah fitted everything onto the Ark, and if you go with the B.S.C. then it's really not that much use. The Biological species concept? Where is that opposed to clades and taxonemy? I don't think i've heard of it. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Also, maybe intelligence can be an added feature to the definition of "kinds", that should create some seperation.
ABE: I don't want to go off topic in this thread either. Maybe I should start a new thread. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The biological species concept defines species based on their capacity for interbreeding and producing viable offspring, usually in the wild. So under the BSC a donkey and a horse would constitute different species since although they can interbreed the offspring, mules, are sterile.
If this was used as a basis for kinds then there would be several hundred thousand, if not millions, of them to be accommodated on the Ark. Most of those would be insects but there would still be tens of thousands of vertebrates to accommodate even if we left all of the fish species out of the picture. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4355 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
So do you mean that the dog got/evolved its "webbed feet" AFTER getting into a very strong ocean current or BEFORE?
If yes, or after, then, how many times did the dog go to the ocean so that it acquired its own webbed feet? Do you have an experiment or record for that?Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
intellen
Please, if you comment on here please make sure that your comment makes some sense and that you don't misrepresent what is said. Please also don't tell untruths. You are dealing with quite a few intelligent people here. Also, please ensure that your comments are on topic. A lot of us are here to learn something on the subject from more knowledgable people. Nobody has ever claimed that a dog "got" anything like "webbed feet". You either set up a straw man of the Theory of Evolution or you deliberately told untruths. Both of these are frowned upon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So do you mean that the dog got/evolved its "webbed feet" AFTER getting into a very strong ocean current or BEFORE? If yes, or after, then, how many times did the dog go to the ocean so that it acquired its own webbed feet? Do you have an experiment or record for that? You have no idea what the theory of evolution is. You are therefore incompetent to discuss it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
quote:No, Chuck, the moment you bring the word "kind" into the conversation, you bring your beliefs into it. The word "kind" is not a scientific term.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi intellen, and welcome to the fray.
So do you mean that the dog got/evolved its "webbed feet" AFTER getting into a very strong ocean current or BEFORE? Sorry, but you seem to be misinformed about how evolution works. Badly. Mutations don't pop up when needed, nor do they occur suddenly in fully grown organisms. They occur during the formation (sex cells and fetal development) process and they are passed from one generation to the next if they prove advantageous to survival or breeding for the individual born with the mutation. It has little to do with swimming in strong ocean currents per se, rather it has to do with living in an ecology that has a significant semi-marine environment in addition to land environment, one that provides strong selection for good swimming ability. Dogs normally can swim, some better than others, and this allows them to take advantage of coastal ecologies.
If yes, or after, then, how many times did the dog go to the ocean so that it acquired its own webbed feet? That is not how evolution works. At all. Look again at how the process of evolution was defined in Message 1 quote: Mutation can cause change in the composition of hereditary traits carried by individuals of a breeding population, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large). Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause change in the distribution of hereditary traits within the breeding population, but they are not the only mechanism that does so. Mutations occur in the developmental process of individual members of a breeding population, but selection of mutations is what alters the overall population distribution of traits. Because evolution involves both mutation and selection, evolution occurs at the breeding population level rather than at the individual level: an individual with a mutation is a variation within the species; when the whole breeding population carries the mutation, that population has evolved. The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, the breeding population evolves, other organisms within the ecology evolve, migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, or a breeding population migrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction. The ecology of the Newfoundland Dog is predominantly coastal in an area with significant tides (Bay of Fundy for example), and this presents challenges and opportunities different from other ecologies, one that encourages swimming in rather cold water and encountering currents that go along with those tides.
Many places along the coast that are open at low tide become islands or submerged at high tide. Having webbed feet is a fairly common mutation. When people are born with webbed feet it is called a deformity, because it is something that is not normally expected. This is a mutation that effects the completion of fetal development, as mammal fetuses have webbed limbs in early development, and the webbing is normally reabsorbed in the final stages.
quote: Any mutation that interrupts\disrupts this process results in webbed feet. A dog born with webbed feet would have an advantage swimming compared to one without, and thus this can be an advantageous mutation for a breed of dog that normally lives more around a marine environment than other breeds. If there is no disadvantage to having webbed feet, then they can be passed on to offspring. A Newfoundland Dog with webbed feet would have a significant swimming advantage over other dogs, and this could result in positive selection for webbed feet over many generations until it became a fairly universal trait for this breed. That there was positive selection within the breeding population of Newfoundland Dogs for swimming in cold ocean water is demonstrated, not by just one mutation, but by a coordinated chorus of mutations and adaptations:
Each of these features involve selection over several generations within the breeding population to become dominant in the breed, and all of them show complementary selection of mutations for a pro-swimming selecting ecology. But the evolutionary process does not stop there: these mutations also permit changed behavior:
quote: The swimming pattern normal to dogs has been adapted in the Newfoundland Dogs to a more efficient stroke that is enabled by their selected mutations for a pro-swimming selecting ecology. No other dog swims in this manner. Is this modified behavior not a new feature? (that is after all, the topic here).
Do you have an experiment or record for that? We have the Newfoundland Dog breed, with the above noted selection of pro-swimming mutations and modified behavior to a more efficient swimming pattern compared to other dogs, we have the observation of webbed feet mutations in many organisms (including people), and we have the genetic record that shows that Newfoundland Dogs, like all other dogs, are descended from wolves. 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: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : topic noteby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4355 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Thank you, RAZD. I understand ToE but I think it is you who don't.
Let us clarify some points: (1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. It means that if there is no ecological challenges and opportunities, there will be no response, and there will be no evolution since there is no response, right? Since that is how ToE defines and claims about it, right? So, let us go back to webbed feet again. As you had said that webbed feet, as one traits for dog, is good for ocean and for swimming, am I right? So the common ancestor of that dog, say doggy 1, must had no trait (webbed feet). Since you had specifically said that webbed feet for dog is good in ocean for ocean current and for swimming, then, doggy 1 must had swum in the ocean current many times (its ecological challenges) got its traits there (responses), and passed it to the new dog (evolution), right? Since we are talking about science, is there any scientific research done this? How many times doggy 1 swum in the ocean and got its new trait and passed it to the new generation dog? What ocean? Pacific or Atlantic? I think, I cannot believe it unless I test and verify it. That is science anyway.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
So, let us go back to webbed feet again. As you had said that webbed feet, as one traits for dog, is good for ocean and for swimming, am I right? So the common ancestor of that dog, say doggy 1, must had no trait (webbed feet). Since you had specifically said that webbed feet for dog is good in ocean for ocean current and for swimming, then, doggy 1 must had swum in the ocean current many times (its ecological challenges) got its traits there (responses), and passed it to the new dog (evolution), right? No. Dogs born without webbed feet don't get them later in life because they swim in the sea. Dogs born without webbed feet will die without webbed feet. What happens is that a dog is born with webbed feet, due to a random mutation. As RAZD pointed out, mutations causing webbed feet are common in humans and dogs. The mutation isn't a response to the sea being there, it's totally unconnected. Where the response comes in is selection. Do dogs born with webbed feet have better reproductive success than those without? If that is the case, then webbed feet will become common.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi intellen,
Thank you, RAZD. I understand ToE but I think it is you who don't. ... Since that is how ToE defines and claims about it, right? Define the Theory of Evolution (ToE) then. Not the process (which you quoted), the theory (or are you conflating the two?). If you do not understand the differences then it is highly likely that you do not properly understand either.
It means that if there is no ecological challenges and opportunities, there will be no response, and there will be no evolution since there is no response, right? ... No, it means that if there are no changes to the existing challenges and opportunities there will be no selection to respond to changed conditions. Change can still occur within the breeding population through neutral drift. Change in the distribution of hereditary traits withing a breeding population via neutral drift is still evolution. The existing ecology can still provide opportunities for adaptation and selection as well. The process of evolution is so universal that there are no breeding populations of organisms I know of that do not show evolution in progress in each generation.
... So the common ancestor of that dog, say doggy 1, must had no trait (webbed feet). ... Wolves generally do not have webbed feet, wolves are ancestral to dogs, including Newfoundland Dogs.
... doggy 1 must had swum in the ocean current many times (its ecological challenges) got its traits there (responses), and passed it to the new dog (evolution), right? ... How many times doggy 1 swum in the ocean and got its new trait ... Completely, utterly, woefully, abysmally wrong. The individual organism does not change after birth (other than any maturation of features). The individual gets mutations (a) during the process of sex cell formation by the parents and (b) during the fetal development process as the various elements of the organism grow. After it is born there are no further mutational changes that affect its phenotype (other than any maturation of features).
IF the individual has mutations that make it more successful at survival and breeding, THEN the mutation will be passed to the breeding population through its offspring. IF an individual dog is born with webbed feet AND there is positive selection for webbed feet, THEN webbed feet will increase in following generations through the offspring of those with webbed feet because they survive and breed better that ones without.
Since we are talking about science, is there any scientific research done this? ... and passed it to the new generation dog? ... Yes. This issue is regarding the natural selection of beneficial mutations within a breeding population, and yes there are thousands of studies of natural selection of beneficial mutations within a breeding population. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis (and this is particularly true of mutations that result in webbed feet, as previously noted). Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations (Galapagos Finches and Peppered Moths are well known examples of such studies), and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
I think, I cannot believe it unless I test and verify it. That is science anyway. No, it is what you think, and what you believe, not what is science. If something can be observed, then it can be a fact that is used in science. Mutations for webbed feet can be observed, selection of beneficial traits can be observed. You are free to deny and ignore this, but it doesn't change the facts. The issue of this thread is how novel features evolve, not your misunderstanding/s of evolution, so the question here is: Do you agree that a breed of dog with webbed feet and other traits adapted to more efficient swimming ability constitute the development of a novel feature within the Newfoundland Dog breed? One that does not exist in either the ancestral species (Wolf) or *combined* in (1) other dog breeds? Yes No Enjoy. (1) - Note that Message 43 lists other dog breeds that also have webbed feet, so this particular adaptation is not unique to Newfoundland Dogs. What is unique is the combination of adaptations for superior swimming ability: webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and the modified swimming behavior. Edited by RAZD, : added footnote, and amended statement Edited by RAZD, : clarityby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
Do you agree that ... does not exist in either the ancestral species (Wolf) or in other dog breeds?
If he does he would be wrong, there are several other breeds of dog that have webbed paws. Most of these are dogs bred as retrievers particularly for hunting water fowl. Newfoundlands are far from unique in this respect. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Wounded King
If he does he would be wrong, there are several other breeds of dog that have webbed paws. Most of these are dogs bred as retrievers particularly for hunting water fowl. Newfoundlands are far from unique in this respect. Yes, we know that webbed feet per se is a common mutation, but I am not talking just webbed feet (bold added):
Do you agree that a breed of dog with webbed feet and other traits adapted to more efficient swimming ability constitute the development of a novel feature within the Newfoundland Dog breed? One that does not exist in either the ancestral species (Wolf) or in other dog breeds? Note that this is not just webbed feet but the combination of adaptations for superior swimming ability: webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and the modified swimming behavior. I have modified the post to clarify this point, Thanks. If intellen wants, he can consider the incidence of webbed feet in other breeds as confirmation evidence of this aspect in the evolution of the Newfoundland Dog. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, let us go back to webbed feet again. As you had said that webbed feet, as one traits for dog, is good for ocean and for swimming, am I right? So the common ancestor of that dog, say doggy 1, must had no trait (webbed feet). Since you had specifically said that webbed feet for dog is good in ocean for ocean current and for swimming, then, doggy 1 must had swum in the ocean current many times (its ecological challenges) got its traits there (responses), and passed it to the new dog (evolution), right? OMG, absolutely not! Is that really how you think evolution is proposed to work!? Really!?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024