"(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."
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)
Yes, you used comma in between of these phrases..."from generation to generation, in response to ecological..."
By using comma, you are talking both "changes" as affected by this changing of environment.
Now, Theory of Evolution is a theory of the origin of species in science, to be exact. ToE is not an abiogenesis nor origin of universe. Biological Evolution is change in frequency of allele. Evolution is change.
So, my question will be: when environment changes, did the population has no time to go to another place to live for safety?
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
when environment changes, did the population has no time to go to another place to live for safety?
Is english your first language?
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
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 minds soon 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
Well that explains why you're sometimes hard to understand.
So, my question will be: when environment changes, did the population has no time to go to another place to live for safety?
So what are you asking here? is it:
When an environment changes such that the original population cannot survive in it what happens to that population?
if that is the question then the answer is: The population will die out.
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 minds soon 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
So, if the population will die out, then, there will be no evolution occurring in any form. I mean, there will be no "common ancestors" for the new species.
That means, evolution is not true, am I right? Since if those population could evacuate and look for another place to live, then, there will be no natural selection, am I right? No nat selec, no evolution. So, nat selec is not actually doing its work in mainland or any bigger island, am I right?
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
You asked a specific question: what happens if an environment changes and the population hasn't time to move somewhere else. In that case, the population dies. This has in fact happened in the past, we can find evidence for it. But each time that has happened, other populations were able to survive, and thrive in the new environment.
The history of life on the earth is dominated by extinction. Millions of species have gone extinct. In every case, however, other species moved in. There are massive amounts of evidence to show that this took place. This extinction of one species doesn't necessarily lead to the extinction of another species.
If the environment of the entire planet were to change in such a way that no life could survive, it would become a dead planet. That obviously hasn't happened.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
No, you're wrong. Oddly, 150 years of research wasn't overturned by your devastating insight.
Since if those population could evacuate and look for another place to live, then, there will be no natural selection, am I right? No nat selec, no evolution. So, nat selec is not actually doing its work in mainland or any bigger island, am I right?
Wrong again. The ToE survives yet another blistering attack by an outstanding mind.
Evolution does not guarantee survival. That should be obvious if you know that 99% of all species that have ever lived are now exinct.
Look again at the lizards, a real life example. They out-competed the domestic lizard AND evolved. One species survived and adapted, the other died. That's life here on earth.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
You asked a specific question: what happens if an environment changes and the population hasn't time to move somewhere else. In that case, the population dies. This has in fact happened in the past, we can find evidence for it. But each time that has happened, other populations were able to survive, and thrive in the new environment.
The history of life on the earth is dominated by extinction. Millions of species have gone extinct. In every case, however, other species moved in. There are massive amounts of evidence to show that this took place. This extinction of one species doesn't necessarily lead to the extinction of another species.
If the environment of the entire planet were to change in such a way that no life could survive, it would become a dead planet. That obviously hasn't happened.
Good. Thank you. So, when you say "other population", what do you mean? If say, the dogs has a population of 1,000,000 and they are all scattered on earth, say pop1 = 20,000(n) in this area(a), pop2 = 35,000 in another area, popn= n in another a area. So, the question will be: what other area is possible for evolution? How many individual in population so that evolution will occur? Now, we are only talking/discussing nat selec.
How about those dogs that has "webbed feet", what area are they in? Or their common ancestors, where did they live?
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
There are several questions there, and I'm not sure I understand them all. But I strongly suspect you are not understanding my point.
The doggies do not live in the middle of an otherwise lifeless desert. There are thousands of other species in the environment as well. If all the doggies go extinct, that will open up opportunities for other organisms to thrive. Perhaps doggies were competing with wolfies for food. With doggies gone, wolfies may increase. Perhaps doggies were eating kitties. Since fewer kitties are being eaten, they may see a population increase.
Any species going extinct will change the competitive balance of the enviroment that the species inhabited.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
intellen, you are obviously very confused about evolution and mutation and selection, undoubtedly by the creationist/ID misrepresentations of evolution that you have learned. Well, I do think there's a far amount of confusion about mutation, which is compounded by creationist misuse.
First, there are different types of mutation, but only one kind is of any interest in evolution, namely only heritable mutations. Any mutation which cannot be inherited is of no use to evolution.
What the general public and most creationists mean by "mutation" are gross physical changes that are readily apparent. These changes manifest themselves during embryonic and fetal development and can caused either by the DNA inherited from the parents or by external environmental factors (eg, thalidomide). Obviously, the mutations caused by external factors are of no interest, because they cannot be inherited; if such a mutant were to be able to reproduce, its mutation could not be transmitted to its offspring. Only the changes due to changes in DNA that could be inherited are of any interest.
Therefore, the only mutations that are of any interest are genetic mutations, and even then only one type. An individual has basically two types of cells: somatic cells, which are the cells of its body, and germ cells, which are the cells that produce its gametes, either sperm or egg or spore. If a mutation occurrs in a somatic cell, then while it may well affect the operation of that cell and of the cells that it produces (eg, creating a lesion or a tumor) it will be of no evolutionary interest because it could not be inherited by the individual's offspring. However, if a mutation were to occur in a germ cell, then it could be copied into a gamete and, if that gamete were to be involved in reproduction, passed on to the individual's offspring. Now that is of interest to evolution and can be used by evolution!
And those heritable genetic mutations are themselves of certain specific types, all of them of evolutionary interest, such as base substitution, base insertion or deletion, sequence duplication, sequence transposition, etc. The Wikipedia article, Mutation, lists them much more completely and describes them in much more detail.
So then, mutation happens all the time, though the rate and types of mutation can be affected by the presence of mutagens (substances or factors, such as radiation, which cause mutation) in the environment. The only time that any mutation could possibly be involved in evolution is when it is passed on during reproduction. The physical changes that a mutation may cause is implemented and established in the individual body during development. Despite what you've seen in sci-fi films and TV, a mutation that happens during the individual's lifetime does not cause that individual to completely change form, but rather could only cause somatic changes in the individual's offspring.
Since creationist misrepresentation of evolution has included misrepresenting it as being equivalent to mutation, perhaps part of your gross confusion is due to that. Mutatution is one factor that contributes to genetic variability (another factor in sexual reproduction is genetic recombination). When a population reproduces, the genetic variability of its offspring increases. But then the environment selects which offsprings' traits are more optimally suited for survival through the fact that those who are more able to survive will be more likely to reach reproductive age and be able to pass their traits on to their own offspring. Evolution is the combined effects of increased variability (partially due to mutations, which can also introduce new traits and modification of old traits) and selection by the environment.
That is also described in terms of the genotype (the genetic make-up of an individual) and the phenotype (the individual's physical body created by its genotype during development). It is only the phenotype that selection and the environment works with, but it's only the genotype that can mutate and be inherited.
In summary:
Mutations happen all the time, independent of any ecological factors or "opportunities". Only those mutations that are heritable might be passed on to one's offspring. Only genetic mutations are heritable.
Offspring are selected for or against (most commonly against) based on how well they are able to survive to reproductive age. This is where ecological factors or "opportunities" can come into play. Selection knows nothing about genetics; selection only knows about how well an individual's traits work in that particular environment.
Evolution is the net effects of selection working on genetic variability. It is not mutation alone! It is not selection alone! It is both mutation (and genetic recombination, etc) and selection working together!
Evolution is really that simple! It boggles the mind how much creationists can screw it up so much!
How is this off topic? I would like to know what this forum defines as off topic.
One looks at the title and the opening post to determine what the topic is. If in doubt ask the author.
It is slightly off topic (as much of this thread is to date) because it addresses what evolution is rather than how novel features are formed or what a novel feature is.
An animal that depends on keratin for survival will not live if the keratin genes have been destroyed before collagen genes can be evolved. ...
But the keratin genes do not occur in one locus in any organism. This is a protein, and there are many copies of the parts of cells that produce proteins. One can be altered without affecting the rest, one cell can be altered without affecting the rest.
... The keratin production process must be fully functional while the collagen genes are forming from a previously unusable genetic sequence. ...
Which is what can happen very easily -- you don't need to suddenly have ALL keratin production altered. In fact evolution the easiest modification (mutation) would involve duplicating an existing sequence (thus developing additional keratin producing portions of the cell), and then adapting the redundant one to other uses, in this case collagen (or another new protein).
... 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.
Except that the cell doesn't have to start from scratch, all it needs to do is duplicate a nearly similar molecule production process and then alter it.
Most mutations are neutral -- in other words most mutations are not subject to selection, but they can continue to be produced in descendant organisms because they are neutral to the survival and breeding of these organisms.
If a use is later found for a new protein that is made, then *at that point* the mutation that caused this production becomes beneficial and can be subject to selection.
In addition, selection does not occur on the genetic level, selection is based on the phenotype, the combination of traits, new and old, that are combined in the makeup of the individual organisms.
... reshuffling until the correct amino acid sequence is produced.
Without collagen being produced by previous generations of organism there is no need for collagen in those organisms, and there is no "correct sequence" to be developed. Rather you have random mutations producing random variations on the duplicated protein, until some later date when one is made that is usable or that can be adapted to further use.
Would this be the evolution of a novel trait? Yes No
Please admit to yourself that you are not understanding evolution, the process or the theory, as then you can begin to learn what these are.
It should be saying like this:
"(1) Natural selection involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, ...
Not in any known species. Changes in the composition of hereditary traits are cause by random mutations that occur during the creation and development of offspring.
"(1) Natural selection involves ... changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations ...
Yes, BUT natural selection is one of many mechanisms that do this, AND natural selection can select for stasis rather than changes in the frequency distributions.
Am I right?
No.
Now lets get back to the topic:
Does this involve the evolution of novel traits? Yes No
If no, then please start a new thread on (a) what you think the theory of evolution is and (b) how the process of evolution works in breeding populations.
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.
I trust that in a biology class that you've had in secondary school (what in my day was junior and senior high school grades 7 through 12) or in college, you had covered Mendellian genetics. Did that instruction also cover multiple alleles? If not, then here goes (and if so, then this will be for the lurkers).
Basically (for our discussion, at least), "allele" is synonomous with "gene". In Mendellian genetics, you have a pair of genes for a trait, one from either parent. These genes are either dominant or recessive, such that (in most cases) if either gene is dominant then the dominant trait will be expressed (eg, brown eyes) and only if both genes are recessive will the recessive trait be expressed (eg, blue eyes). The same holds for hair color and for skin color. Since there are four possible combinations, three of which will express the dominant trait and only one of which will express the recessive, you can start with the parents' genotypes and calculate the probability of their children's genotypes.
OK, we learned all that, but wouldn't that mean that there should only be one shade of blond and one shade of brown hair, only one shade of blue eyes and one of brown, only one shade of light skin and one shade of dark? Why do we see such a wide variety of colors if there are only two possible phenotypes?
The answer is multiple alleles. We don't have only one pair of genes for hair color, but rather several pairs, multiple alleles for that trait. Similarly, we have multiple alleles for skin color and for eye color. Since hair, skin, and eye color result from the production of melanin and it is the dominant alleles that produce melanin and the recessive ones that don't, the more dominant alleles that you have, the darker you will be and the fewer that you have the lighter you will be. Thus by having multiple alleles for color, there is a broad range of shades of color that we can end up with, not just one simple off/on, black/white choice.
So where did these multiple alleles come from? Reading the Wikipedia article on Mutation (highly recommended), you find that one type of mutation is the duplication of genes, which obviously will result in multiple alleles. As the Description section starts out:
quote:Mutations can involve large sections of DNA becoming duplicated, usually through genetic recombination. These duplications are a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years. Most genes belong to larger families of genes of shared ancestry. Novel genes are produced by several methods, commonly through the duplication and mutation of an ancestral gene, or by recombining parts of different genes to form new combinations with new functions.
And therein lies the answer to your question: the production of new genes from old involves the old genes having been duplicated and then some of those duplicated genes mutating to perform a new function while a number of the old genes remain to continue to perform the old function.
Or to put it in terms of your example, which was collagen production evolving from keratin production: First the keratin genes were duplicated, resulting in multiple alleles for keratin. Then some of those keratin genes mutated to produce collagen. At no time in the development of collagen production did the production of keratin ever cease.
Similarly, one "unsolvable problem for evolution" that arises in creationist rhetorics is how sex could have possibly evolved since both male and female had to have "evolved by blind chance" (which is a misrepresentation of how evolution works) at exactly the same time and place or else they would have died out immediately. But in your biology class(es) you should have covered the love-life of plants and of nematodes (worms). And if you had been paying attention, you should have noticed how incredibly complex their love-lives are, what with so many different ways they have to reproduce. Eg, many plants, such as ferns, can reproduce asexually through the production of spores or sexually to produce seeds. Many other plants (I'm just not sure about ferns) employ cloning wherein if a twig breaks off and gets planted in the ground it will grow another plant ("clone" comes from the Greek word for "twig") and some plants, such as strawberries, will actually extend a "runner" out to plant itself in the ground to grow another plant. Many "simple" animals can employ similar multiple reproductive methods. Multiple methods of reproduction, like multiple alleles, that allow the development of other forms of reproduction while retaining the old ways, thus ensuring reproduction until the newer way can be firmly established; by the time we got to tetrapods, sexual reproduction had been firmly established and the old ways lost.
Yes, you used comma in between of these phrases..."from generation to generation, in response to ecological..."
By using comma, you are talking both "changes" as affected by this changing of environment.
Actually what I was saying was that both are part of the complete cycle, and that the process is not complete until the cycle is complete.
Now, Theory of Evolution is a theory of the origin of species in science, to be exact. ToE is not an abiogenesis nor origin of universe. ...
This still does not say what the theory is. The theory of gravity is a theory of how gravity behaves is a statement that tells us nothing about what the actual theory of gravity involves.
The theory of evolution explains the origin of species and other aspects of evolution.
... Biological Evolution is change in frequency of allele. ...
That is part of it. Let me bold that same part in my statement that you keep quoting:
(1) The process of evolution involves the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
So, my question will be: when environment changes, did the population has no time to go to another place to live for safety?
If the change is catastrophic enough to prevent the process of evolution to adapt, then the population will go extinct.
Rather obviously though, if a population is expanding into an additional ecology, then it is not a catastrophic change for the population portion that can take advantage of the additional ecology.
Not all changes are catastrophic, they just need to be a little different to alter the selection process.
™ Version 4.2
