|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
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? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
My favourite example of evolution in big animals [most reasonable people accept evolution can happen in bacteria where it's easily demonstarted, but have difficulty imagining evolution in 'proper' animals like lions and horses] is the the Italian Wall Lizard.
This creature managed to evolve new features in 25 years - incredibly really when we generally think of changes happening over thousands, sometimes millions of years.. This is from the wiki: [My bold in last sentence] Rapid evolution In 1971, ten adult P. sicula specimens from the island of Pod Kopite were transported 3.5 km east to the island of Pod Mrčaru (both Croatian islands lie in the Adriatic Sea near Lastovo), where they founded a new bottlenecked population.[3][11] The two islands have similar size, elevation, microclimate, and a general absence of terrestrial predators[11] and the P. sicula expanded for decades without human interference, even outcompeting the (now extinct[3]) local Podarcis melisellensis population.[4] Following the Yugoslav Wars, scientists returned to Pod Mrčaru and found that the lizards currently occupying Pod Mrčaru differ greatly from those on Pod Kopite. While mitochondrial DNA analyses have verified that P. sicula currently on Pod Mrčaru are genetically indistinguishable from the Pod Kopite source population,[3] the new Pod Mrčaru population of P. sicula was described, in August 2007, as having a larger average size, shorter hind limbs, lower maximal sprint speed and altered response to simulated predatory attacks compared to the original Pod Kopite population.[11] These population changes in morphology and behavior were attributed to "relaxed predation intensity" and greater protection from vegetation on Pod Mrčaru.[11]In 2008, further analysis revealed that the Pod Mrčaru population of P. sicula have significantly different head morphology (longer, wider, and taller heads) and increased bite force compared to the original Pod Kopite population.[3] This change in head shape corresponded with a shift in diet: Pod Kopite P. sicula are primarily insectivorous, but those on Pod Mrčaru eat substantially more plant matter.[3] The changes in foraging style may have contributed to a greater population density and decreased territorial behavior of the Pod Mrčaru population.[3] The most surprising[5] difference found between the two populations was the discovery, in the Pod Mrčaru lizards, of cecal valves, which slow down food passage and provide fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to nutrients digestible by the lizards.[3] Additionally, the researchers discovered that nematodes were common in the guts of Pod Mrčaru lizards, but absent from Pod Kopite P. sicula, which do not have cecal valves. The cecal valves, which occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,[5] have been described as an "evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards".[7] Italian wall lizard - Wikipedia Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi intellen, still having trouble with the concept of how evolution works, I see.
Small surprise that you are garnering more and more replies trying to tell you why you are so wrong. That's what happens here when you are wrong.
ToE said that "population" evolves, OK, I got it. Please note that you still have not said what you think the ToE says: I asked you to define it. Until you provide a definition of the ToE I have to assume that you do not understand what the THEORY is, and are just blathering along in ignorance. Please complete this sentence (or paragraph): The Theory of Evolution is ....................
RAZD said that "the ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes...", Correct, and this affects the selection process.
... that means, the ocean or seas had affected doggy1 (that has no webbed feet)in its environment; doggy1 could not escape from that harsh environment or new ecological challenges. So in response, doggy1 evolved and got a new trait, i.e., the webbed feet, and passed that trait to doggy2. Curiously, that is not at all what it means. Go back and read it again, ... or do I need to call Poe on you? What it means is that IF there is a dog with webbed feet, THEN that dog would be more fit for survival in a coastal environment where the ability to swim is beneficial, as this ability would provide additional means to survive and breed compared to one without.
The logical questions will be: Irrelevant when you start with a false premise. Lets review -- again -- what the process of evolution involves:
quote: Things to note here are:
In each generation the selection process picks the organisms that are best fit to the current ecology (due to the particular mix of hereditary traits the individuals carry) to be parents of the next generation ... whether the ecology changes or not. It is a response feedback system because of the selection process over multiple generations, not because of the mutation process. Mutations are random and occur constantly, with each new offspring carrying many changes from the hereditary traits of their parents. The individuals with a mixture of hereditary traits that lead to higher survival and breeding will survive and breed more than individuals without such mixtures. The feedback is the traits that survive in the individuals that breed the following generation. The response is to reproduce more of the traits that survived, increasing their frequency in the population, mixed with some new variations (random mutations) in the new generation. In a static ecology the selection will be for stasis (offspring similar to parents), in a changing ecology the selection will be for adaptations to the new ecology (offspring with some differences from their parents). The selection process determines the mixture of hereditary traits that are available in the breeding population for producing the next generation. Go back and look at the picture again: it is a continual process occurring every generation. This process is - according to all the information I have - universal in all species alive today. The process of evolution is not the theory of evolution (nor is it the science of evolution). It is the process by which evolution occurs.
... that means, the ocean or seas had affected doggy1 (that has no webbed feet)in its environment; doggy1 could not escape from that harsh environment or new ecological challenges. ... I'm trying to pick out tid-bits from your post that have some relevance from the mixture of really bad understanding. Change in the ecology of a breeding population can be gradual (climate change) or it can be due to the population entering a new environment, and these changes can provide challenges and opportunities for altering the pattern of survival and breeding selection within the population, selecting the hereditary traits that are better suited for living in the new ecology. btw Ecology refers to the interaction of the breeding species with all the elements of the environment it is living in, Environment refers to climate and organic surroundings and patterns, etc., such as a forest environment or a coastal environment.
PLEASE, remember that: random mutation will not kick in IF there is no new ecological challenges. ... Random mutations do not "kick in" -- they occur continuously and occur many times in every new offspring. Some mutations occur with more frequency than others. Mutations that cause webbed feet is extremely common. If there is an ecology where having webbed feet is beneficial, this does not cause the mutation to webbed feet, it selects the mutation for breeding the next generation when the mutation occurs.
... That is the post of RAZD and caffeine. Your failure to accurately restate in your words what you have been told correctly, shows that you do not understand this concept. Please -- discard your notion of "doggy1" and everything you think you know about evolution and start over. Start with population(1), or generation(1). Use the image above. Think about what the feedback is and what the response to that feedback is. If you need some references I can provide them. Now the topic is the evolution of novel traits, not remedial evolution, so again I ask: Do you agree that a breed of dog with webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and a modified swimming behavior, 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 this way in other dog breeds? Yes No Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : the feedback Edited by RAZD, : .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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
PLEASE, remember that: random mutation will not kick in IF there is no new ecological challenges. That is the post of RAZD and caffeine. RAZD did a great job of commenting on this. Just thought I would help clarify a bit. Let's use dogs and mutations that cause webbed feet as the example again, and assume that webbed feet are advantageous for a species that lives by the water. You have a population of dogs that lives by the coast and one that lives in the forest. You measure the rate at which the mutation occurs in each population. What are your results? You find that the webbed feet mutation occurs at the same rate in both populations. What differs is the number of offspring the individuals with webbed feet have in each population. In the population by the coast the webbed feet mutation will be passed on at a higher rate than in the population in the forest. This is true for EVERY generation. This means that every generation will see more and more individuals with the inherited webbed feet mutation as compared to the forest population. Is this any clearer?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Changes in the composition of traits in breeding populations cannot create new structures where none existed before. Mutations can create new structures, such as dogs with webbed feet. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi foreveryoung,
Changes in the composition of traits in breeding populations cannot create new structures where none existed before. ... Mutations by definition are changes in the composition of traits. Mutations that are new to a population are new structures, whether those structures are visible or not (ie the chemical composition within a structure can be changed without apparent external change). There are several examples where new structures are observed in species, modified from previous structures by mutation. Webbed feet in a child from parents that are not web footed would be just one example.
... It cannot change keratin into collagen no matter how many different traits occur in a population. The difference between keratin and collagen is chemical. Evolution does not need to change one into the other -- rather what evolution would do is change the production process so that collagen is produced where keratin had previously been produced. This just requires a simple change in the amino acid sequence during assembly, a rather common mutation process. Not all the keratin production needs to be affected either, just some of it, to have collagen produced. Protein assembly is part of the function of a cell, and occurs in many locations within the cell, to say nothing about the multiplicity of cells within organisms, so that ONE could produce collagen while all the others continue to produce keratin. Keratin - Wikipedia
quote: Collagen - Wikipedia
quote: Redundancy in production of various proteins and amino acid sequences means that mutations can affect some without affecting the total production nor necessarily affecting the survival of the organism. The topic is how novel evolve. Do you agree that webbed feet are not a dominant trait in (modern or ancestral) wolves? Yes No When webbed feet are a dominant trait within a breed of dogs, does this constitute a new feature that did not exist in the ancestral wolf population? Yes No Is this how novel features arise via evolution? Yes No 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4356 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Thank you for your reply beginning from RAZD, caffeine and all the folks here.
I understand ToE. I am questioning this premise that RAZD had posted in his OP. Once again, here is the problematic PREMISE 1: "(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." Look, in a very simple English sentence construction, that premise is telling us cause and effect. "In response to ecological challenges and opportunities," accdg to the above Premise 1, "The process of evolution..." does something and includes something. Do you understand how you use the phrase "...in response to..."? I knew that evolution has mechanisms like mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc...but accdg to the above PREMISE1, these mechanisms from ToE or evolution will not kick in unless ecological challenges and opportunities will not arise. So, can you explain and tell me how do you use the phrase, "...in response to...."?Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
I understand ToE. I am questioning this premise that RAZD had posted in his OP. Once again, here is the problematic PREMISE 1: "(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." Perhaps I can help clarify what RAZD is saying. Let's say that there are two alleles in a population: allA and allB. In the current population the alleles are evenly distributed meaning that 50% of the population has allA and 50% has allB (with some having both). The environment changes. The new environment favors allA. What will we see in future generations? We will see the allelic distribution change over several generations. You will soon see allA in more individuals then you will see allB. That is the cause and effect.
I knew that evolution has mechanisms like mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc...but accdg to the above PREMISE1, these mechanisms from ToE or evolution will not kick in unless ecological challenges and opportunities will not arise. Every living population is competing for limited resources, so it applies to every living population. Even in static environments there is still competition between individuals for food and resources.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jefferinoopolis Junior Member (Idle past 4090 days) Posts: 19 Joined: |
I understand ToE. This is obviously an untrue statement because of this.....
I knew that evolution has mechanisms like mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc...but accdg to the above PREMISE1, these mechanisms from ToE or evolution will not kick in unless ecological challenges and opportunities will not arise. Natural selection "kicks in" in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc occur with every new generation. If a change in an organism is beneficial in its current environment and it will get selected for. Edited by Jefferinoopolis, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4356 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Thank you for the answer. Please, be specific.
Perhaps I can help clarify what RAZD is saying. Let's say that there are two alleles in a population: allA and allB. In the current population the alleles are evenly distributed meaning that 50% of the population has allA and 50% has allB (with some having both). The environment changes. The new environment favors allA. What will we see in future generations? We will see the allelic distribution change over several generations. You will soon see allA in more individuals then you will see allB. That is the cause and effect. Okay, let us use the dog as an example without having a "webbed feet". You said that "environment changes". The questions will be, if the environment changes, will those dog (let us say a population of dogs, and let us call that population in that generation, doggy1), will doggy1 cannot go to another place for safety? They have feet anyway, OK? So, let us assume that the environment is so static that doggy1 could not escape from the changing environment, so what will doggy1 do? If the environment is ocean, so, will doggy1 had to swim in that ocean current to live? After a while they evolved and got the "webbed feet" as new trait? You see, you have to see the scenario since it is science in where we can test and verify. OR Did doggy1 live in a remote island lesser or smaller than Galapagos since maybe they could not escape the environment when it changes? That is science and we need that so that we can check for verification.
Every living population is competing for limited resources, so it applies to every living population. Even in static environments there is still competition between individuals for food and resources. I understand that. But are those doggy1 could not escape or just go to another place to find food to live? They had feet anyway. Are all their feet gone and could not walk especially in static environment? Please, be specific and use reality. Let us be real and be scientific so that anybody can check and test. Thank you.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
How is this off topic? I would like to know what this forum defines as off topic.
The difference between keratin and collagen is chemical. Evolution does not need to change one into the other -- rather what evolution would do is change the production process so that collagen is produced where keratin had previously been produced. This just requires a simple change in the amino acid sequence during assembly, a rather common mutation process An animal that depends on keratin for survival will not live if the keratin genes have been destroyed before collagen genes can be evolved. The keratin production process must be fully functional while the collagen genes are forming from a previously unusable genetic sequence. Like I said, random mutations will not produce the collagen gene sequence because there is nothing to select during the various mutations and reshuffling until the correct amino acid sequence is produced.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4356 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Natural selection "kicks in" in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc occur with every new generation. If a change in an organism is beneficial in its current environment and it will get selected for. Then, the PREMISE1 is wrong since it said, "(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 should be saying like this: "(1) Natural selection 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." Am I right?Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again intellen
I understand ToE. You haven't shown that you do. Please state the theory of evolution: The theory of evolution is ................................................................ Once you have answered this we can evaluation whether or not you understand it.
... I am questioning this premise that RAZD had posted in his OP. Once again, here is the problematic PREMISE 1: "(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." Look, in a very simple English sentence construction, that premise is telling us cause and effect. The PROCESS of evolution is not the THEORY of evolution. If you don't understand the difference you are not understanding either. The PROCESS of evolution is composed of two parts in a repeating alternating do-loop cycle: (a) changes in the composition of hereditary traits -- occurs through random mutation. (b) changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits -- occurs through selection (survival and breeding)
You need to look at the whole cycle.
... ..but accdg to the above PREMISE1, these mechanisms from ToE ... Again Go back and define the THEORY of EVOLUTION: The theory of evolution is ................................................................
... ToE or evolution ... The THEORY of evolution is not the same as the PROCESS of evolution, and your continued confusion of these shows not just a lack of understanding but an apparent inability to learn. You can show that you are not confused, ignorant, deluded, stupid or trolling by defining the theory of evolution: The theory of evolution is ................................................................
... or evolution will not kick in unless ecological challenges and opportunities will not arise. Still absolutely wrong. The process of evolution occurs in every generation in every breeding population because all living organisms live within ecologies, and those ecologies always involve challenges and opportunities: the challenge to survive to breed, the opportunity to survive to breed. The process of evolution is continuous.
So, can you explain and tell me how do you use the phrase, "...in response to...."? How the individual organisms in a population respond to those challenges and opportunities determines who survives, who breeds and who does not. The individual organisms do not change, they live, die, breed depending on how suited their hereditary traits are suited to surviving and breeding within their ecology. The response of who is able to live and breed goes into the next cycle of breeding with then added new mutations in the next generation. Consider this population trait distribution and selection:
The distribution of traits has shifted to the left in response to the opportunities and challenges of the ecology. Does that help? 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
No you are wrong. The basis of the changes in the hereditary traits is not natural selection but mutation, recombination and other factors which alter the genetic material or related heritable information.
Evolution is the result of the operation of selection on the heritable variation generated by these processes. It is surprising how many creationists/IDists seem unable to grasp this distinction. TTFN, WK
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
They have feet anyway, OK? So, let us assume that the environment is so static that doggy1 could not escape from the changing environment, so what will doggy1 do?
How can a static environment be changing environment?
If the environment is ocean, so, will doggy1 had to swim in that ocean current to live? After a while they evolved and got the "webbed feet" as new trait?
Again. Evolution does not occur after birth. God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
intellen writes: I understand that. But are those doggy1 could not escape or just go to another place to find food to live? They had feet anyway. Are all their feet gone and could not walk especially in static environment? Please, be specific and use reality. Let us be real and be scientific so that anybody can check and test. Instead of playing around with simplified theoretical examples, why not read the real life one at Message 61. What do you think is happening there?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024