Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do "novel" features evolve?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 136 of 314 (660000)
04-20-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by intellen
04-20-2012 1:46 AM


Re: To PRESSIE
Sorry admin, I’ll try to fix mine. I’ll cover the points made by intellen
intellen writes:
1. Those population don't evolve. They are just adapting, if you are talking about change in whatsoever "changes" you may call, those change is not evolution. It is only adaptation.
What you call adaption is evolution. Any change in heritable characteristics from one biological population to another is evolution. From Wiki Evolution - Wikipedia
Wiki writes:
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
Then, another source:
Douglas J Futuyma, 1986 writes:
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
intellen writes:
2. What part that I am saying is untrue? I am giving you a scenario of the impossibility of nat selec to be the caused of new species in a given population. It is so impossible since population moves and goes to a better place to live for life. So, what is untrue for that?
Lots of them. For example. Message 111, EvC Forum: How do "novel" features evolve? Demonstratably false as has been pointed out right in this threads. Yet you keep repeating it.
intellen writes:
3. Geographical isolation, are you talking an island like Galapagos? But those organisms there don't evolve. They are just adapting. So, where is evolution? ToE is making a scenario and you should be sure that that scenario is in favor of ToE for it will surely be blown away by simple argument
No, I specifically referred to dogs with webbed feet in Labrador (or somewhere in Canada) and dogs without webbed feet in Yorkshire. Named after the areas. Where did I mention the Galapagos Islands?
intellen writes:
4. Before evolution can continue, it must start first. But the starting stage is impossible since population moves, as I said. Then, where is evolution in your scenario?
Evolution is a continuous process in all living organisms. It doesn’t start. It's been happening from before the "population moved".
I think I’ve covered the rest.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 1:46 AM intellen has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 137 of 314 (660003)
04-20-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by intellen
04-20-2012 3:06 AM


Re: To PRESSIE
Then the next one.
intellen writes:
OK, then, let us roll.
So, since mutation or random mutation is the main mech of ToE for new species,...
Untrue. A book called "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" in 1859 mentions natural selection as an important mechanism of evolution.
Genes have only been included in the theory since the 1920's.
Your first sentence is thus wrong. Please fix it before we can start rolling.
intellen writes:
... as many had been saying here,...
I've been looking at the thread, and I can't see where anyone said that. Could you refer to any post stating that, except for yourself?
How can we start rolling if your first sentence is inaccurate?
Edited by Pressie, : Changed a few sentences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 3:06 AM intellen has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 138 of 314 (660005)
04-20-2012 9:01 AM


Moderator Suggestion
I think Intellen has identified the key difference of opinion:
intellen writes:
No error can help any living organisms.
It's probably worthwhile spending some time seeking common ground on this one.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 9:07 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 139 of 314 (660006)
04-20-2012 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Admin
04-20-2012 9:01 AM


Re: Moderator Suggestion
Thanks Admin!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 04-20-2012 9:01 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 140 of 314 (660008)
04-20-2012 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by intellen
04-19-2012 11:25 PM


Re: Slower steps
So the population of doggies have puppies.
But some of the puppies are not perfect, they have webbed feet.
Are you with me so far?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by intellen, posted 04-19-2012 11:25 PM intellen has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 141 of 314 (660010)
04-20-2012 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by intellen
04-19-2012 10:00 PM


still not right ... in a long string of posts that are not right
Hi intellen,
... will never be the caused of those animals to evolve to another species. ...
Curiously new species have been observed. Hence your assumed limitations do not in fact exist.
Message 96: Yeah, there are thousands of another species, that means, natural selection cannot be the caused of the origin of the new species, therefore, evolution is wrong.
No, natural selection ALONE will not be the cause, but natural selection in combination with mutations and the other parts of evolution can and have been the cause of new species.
Message 98: I am talking about natural selection of evolution, not mutation. Why are you talking about mutation?
Because discussing one without the other is incomplete and a failure to look at the whole picture. It's like playing checkers with only red pieces.
Message 99: The reason why I cannot believe in that story that you've posted was that the population of dogs can go to another places to look for food for life if environment changes.
If I am wrong, then, how evolution will kick in to evolve new species if population can go to another place to find for food?
Because (1) evolution is continuous, it doesn't turn off and on, and (2) going to another place means going to a different ecology, one that has different opportunities and challenges. Because this is precisely what we are talking about with the Newfoundland Dog -- they went to another place and have adapted to that place to be able to take even better advantage of it than when they first went there.
Message 100: What do you mean "...in response to ecological challenge and opportunity"? That one is not yet explained by you.
Ecological challenges and opportunities exist in all cases, including current habitats of all living species. They are challenges and opportunities for survival and breeding. The individuals of a breeding population that succeed in meeting the challenges and taking advantage of the opportunities become the parents of the next generation. This means that the inherited traits and mutations that they posses get passed to the next generation instead of those of the individuals that did not succeed.
If there are ecological challenges, why the dogs for example could not just go to another place to live? ...
(1) they already have done that, (2) there are ecological challenges wherever they would go.
When a species moves to another habitat it is because they are able to survive and breed there, even though the challenges and opportunities are different.
... Why evolve?
Because evolution is an unavoidable continuously on-going process that cannot be avoided (except by extinction, as has occurred for most life forms in the natural history record).
Message 102: No, you did not but I am only trying to make it realistic since ToE is somewhat like a fantasy or mythology to us.
No, your fantasy (a) is not about ToE or evolution, and (b) does not apply to those of us that do know what evolution and the theory of evolution (which you still have not defined, and which, curiously, is not needed in this thread).
Your failure to understand does not apply to others, and your opinions do not affect reality.
Message 104: And the worst case from ToE or evolution is that, RAZD had posted in his premiese1 that natural selection deals with ecological challenges. But doggy1 could just go to another place to find food or whatever, for safety. Therefore, there will be be no evolution.
Which just means a different set of challenges and opportunities for the continuous process of evolution to respond to.
Can you name a single species that does not show any change from generation to generation?
Can you name a single place where ecological challenges and opportunities do not exist?
So the question will be: how come ToE says that "webbed feet" is the product of evolution?
By mutation? So, natural selection did not play role for that trait?
Then, I am right that nat selec is not part of evolution.
And you continue to be wrong, because you fail to look at the complete cycle of mutation and selection. One dog with webbed feet in a breeding population is a mutation, when that trait is passed to offspring and becomes the dominant trait in the breeding population, then that is selection, and the population has evolved.
Mutation is always harmful since DNA has its repair mechanism.
Curiously this is both wrong and irrelevant. What is "harmful" in relation to mutations depends on the ecological challenges and opportunities, so what is "harmful" in one can be beneficial in another.
Message 110: But they move or fight to death, that is we see in the jungle. I mean, nat selec cannot part of evolution. ...
Natural selection is what determines the available hereditary traits for the next generation -- those from the individuals that survive to reproduce.
These surviving traits are then put into the reproduction part of the cycle, to be mixed with new mutations and to form offspring with a mixture of the surviving traits and new mutations, the next generation ready to be tested by selection.
That means, ecological challenges cannot be the caused of the new species, ...
It is a part of the cycle, failure to look at the whole cycle means playing with half a deck of cards.
... it ToE is right ...
And you still have failed to show that you know what you are talking about here because you have still failed to define the theory of evolution nor shown that you understand that it is different from the process of evolution.
... That means, ecological challenges cannot be the caused of the new species, ...
Curiously, this thread is about the evolution of novel features, not about the evolution of new species. If you want to discuss your misunderstandings of evolutionary processes in the formation of new species we can start a new thread, and perhaps stop this nonsense of yours that is not on topic for this thread.
The cause of speciation is more complex than simple evolution.
I am talking nat selec since RAZD had touched it in his premise1 in OP.
Now, we can talk mutation or anything you want. No problem.
Okay, how about both operating on the same population in the same ecology ... seeing as I have been talking about both operating on the same population in the same ecology?
Message 111: ... I knew since ToE had been claming that. ...
What does the theory of evolution say? What IS the theory of evolution in your mind?
So, we can switch to mutation, right?
Again, nat selec is only for changes, aka, adaptation, not for origin of new species, aka, evolution of new species.
No, we can talk about both natural selection and mutation, and also about various other aspects that are ALL involved in the process of evolution.
We can also talk about the topic: the evolution of novel features.
If you want to discuss your misunderstanding of evolution in context of the development of new species, then we need to start a new topic -- that is off topic here.
Message 112: But I am talking about nat selec in RAZD's OP. Then, let us talk about mutation.
And curiously, I and everyone else have been talking about both, because both are part of evolution. Only people that do not understand evolution (like you) try to separate them.
Message 117: Nat selec cannot be the caused of evolution or new species is very simple: organisms fight to live or die without evolving, just like dogs in our example.
It is PART of the cause. Once again you demonstrate your willful ignorance of what evolution is (to say nothing about your failure to define the theory of evolution).
(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.
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.
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.
It is like a dance: you need both partners to tango.
You need to complete the cycle for evolution. "Parents of the next generation" carry the hereditary traits selected by survival and breeding success. "Offspring" carry the traits selected in their parents generation plus mutations on some of those traits that may or may not be beneficial for survival and breeding success. Individuals of this generation that pass selection for survival and breeding become parents of the following generation, and the whole cycle repeats.
They adapt but they don't evolve.
Thank you for proving once again that you do not understand evolution in the slightest: amusingly, adaptation is achieved by evolution.
Message 119: I knew that accdg to ToE, ...
Which you still have not defined ...
Nor is the THEORY of evolution involved in this thread where the topic is how novel features evolve.
... individual organisms don't evolve but population BUT that is an assertion and an unsupported claim ...
Amusingly evolution has been observed a great number of times actually occurring in the actual real world. Of course this involves the real world evolution of biology and not your fantasy misunderstanding of same.
... since as I had been saying here that population cannot evolve since they move to a place in where safety is the first concern, ...
No matter where they move they will face ecological challenges and opportunities and no matter how large or small these are, the populations will continue to evolve in the continuous process that is real world biological evolution.
No population lives in isolation from ecological challenges and opportunities.
... Unless you show that evolution kicks in, then, that is a different story.
Evolution is always ON. It is a continuous process that happens in every generation of every species that I am aware of: if you disagree then please provide an example.
Thus, both population and individual can only adapt but not evolve. ...
And once more, accompanied by a chorus of laughter: adaptation IS evolution.
Therefore, ToE is wrong.
And again, curiously, this thread is not about the THEORY of evolution but about the evolution of novel features, the THEORY of evolution is not the PROCESS of evolution, which is what is being discussed in relation to the evolution of novel features.
Nor have you provided your definition of the THEORY of evolution in order to show that your understanding of the THEORY of evolution is any better than your limited grasp of the PROCESS of evolution.
Claiming an undefined strawman is wrong by assertion alone, no matter how many times it is asserted, does not prove that reality is wrong.
Message 125: 1. Those population don't evolve. They are just adapting, if you are talking about change in whatsoever "changes" you may call, those change is not evolution. It is only adaptation.
And again: adaptation IS evolution. Failure to understand this simple concept shows that you in fact do not understand evolution.
2. What part that I am saying is untrue? I am giving you a scenario of the impossibility of nat selec to be the caused of new species in a given population. It is so impossible since population moves and goes to a better place to live for life. So, what is untrue for that?
Just about everything. Evolution is continuous, the challenges and opportunities for survival and reproduction exist in every single possible ecology in the world, and there is absolutely no guarantee that "a better place" exists than the current ecology, or that it would be possible to get to one that may be "better" without going through a lot worse, and finally ... even in that fantasy "better place" evolution would still occur in response to the challenges and opportunities that exist in that ecology.
For dogs with webbed feet a coastal ecology IS a "better place" than it is for dogs without webbed feet, which is one of the reasons why webbed feet were selected in Newfoundland Dogs.
3. Geographical isolation, are you talking an island like Galapagos? But those organisms there don't evolve. They are just adapting. So, where is evolution? ToE is making a scenario and you should be sure that that scenario is in favor of ToE for it will surely be blown away by simple argument.
Curiously a large number of species on the Galapagos Islands have actually been observed to evolve.
Amusingly adaptation IS evolution.
Interestingly this does not involve the THEORY of evolution, but the PROCESS of evolution, just as this thread is not about the THEORY of evolution but about the PROCESS of evolution and the development of novel features.
You don't know what evolution is, and that apparently is what makes you appear so incompetent to (a) discuss the topic or (b) state the theory of evolution. This lack of understanding is demonstrated by your next statement:
4. Before evolution can continue, it must start first. But the starting stage is impossible since population moves, as I said. Then, where is evolution in your scenario?
Evolution started before the first life appeared on this planet and it has been a continuous process ever since then. There is not one species that does not show evolution occurring in every generation. No matter where a population moves it continues to be affected by evolution, and there is no place where it can get away from it. Where is evolution? All around you. Every single living thing shows evolution.
5. Now here is the fantasy part:
", individuals are born with genes for webbed feet. If the circumstances favour individuals with webbed feet, the genes for webbed feet will be spread in ..."
Individuals are born with a mixture of hereditary traits inherited from their parents and some mutations of traits from their parents. If those mutations provide a benefit to survival and reproduction, then the individual with the mutation can pass them on to their offspring. If the mutation continues to be beneficial to the individuals of a breeding population within the ecological challenges and opportunities that exist, then the mutation will continue to spread in the population due to the success at survival and breeding (selection). Once it becomes dominant in the population, this mutation is "fixed" and becomes a characteristic trait of that population.
Mutations that cause webbed feet are numerous (many points in the development of the fetus can be interrupted and result in webbed feet), and are commonly observed. This is a fact.
The development of other traits that improve the swimming ability of the Newfoundland Dog (lungs etc) show strong selection for improved swimming ability, and thus for webbed feet in that breed.
You are saying that purely natural processes (PNP) did that genes. Or make it realistic, the dirt did it, is that right?
Garbage in garbage out. When you make up stuff you are no longer talking about the science.
How do you know? Can I test it? Can we repeat it?
You can observe the incidence of mutations that cause webbed feet in other breeds of dogs and compare that incidence to the Newfoundland Dog and thus test and show that there is a heightened incidence in the Newfoundland Dog that does not exist in most other breeds nor in wolves.
You can compare the genomes of dog breeds with webbed feet to the genomes of wolves.
You could take a breeding pair of dogs and select among their offspring for swimming ability. Hope you have a long life ahead of you.
6. Now, you told me that I don't know evolution or ToE? If I don't know it, I cannot argue with you. But one thing that you don't know, ToE has messed science in its naturalistic methodology. 150 years of messing facts and evidences, claiming something that should not be claimed. Let us debate further and you will know.
Sadly, you are so very correct that you cannot argue with us, because you DON'T know.
Message 131: So, since mutation or random mutation is the main mech of ToE for new species, as many had been saying here, then, you believe that it is the correct one, OK, with testable evidences? Mark the word: test.
(1) it isn't the "main mech"
(2) it has been extensively tested and
(3) it has actually been demonstrated to occur, over and over and over.
Your ignorance of these facts does not alter this reality.
Mutation is a process. Is it a natural process or a purely natural process (PNP) or intelligent process? We need to remember that nature, as we see it, can make many processes.
If natural process or PNP, why you said that it is not intelligent process?
For me, mutation is a PNP process for it did not help life of any living organism.
For example, the causes of mutation are
"Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[1][2][3] They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation." from Wiki
No error can help any living organisms. If you disagree, then, let us roll again and discuss.
Absolutely irrelevant to the topic ... the evolution of novel features.
Please start a new thread if you want to discuss your concepts further.
I mean it. Start a new thread stating what you think occurs.
Now, I need ur answer about this.
Then start a new topic and stop regurgitation nonsense fantasy on this one.
Please stop wasting posts on this thread with your comments that do not address the formation of novel features, but instead showcase obstinate misunderstanding of evolution.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : mrclrty

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 95 by intellen, posted 04-19-2012 10:00 PM intellen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 10:28 AM RAZD has replied

  
Jefferinoopolis
Junior Member (Idle past 4090 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 09-27-2010


(1)
Message 142 of 314 (660011)
04-20-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by intellen
04-20-2012 12:39 AM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
2. Thus, both population and individual can only adapt but not evolve. Therefore, ToE is wrong.
Consider this scenario:
A species, we’ll call it a bugblatter beast, is adapted to live in the forest similar to the forests found in southern Canada and the Northern US. This forest is quite extensive and the bugblatter beast’s range extends through the whole forest.
Let’s say that the bugblatter is living during an ice age and as the ice retreats and sea levels rise this forest is cut in half by a new sea. You now have two different populations of bugblatter beasts that cannot interact with each other. On the west side of the sea you have the western bugblatter and on the eastern side you have the eastern bugblatter.
The prevailing winds in this area blow from west to east. As the wind blows over the water it picks up moisture and when it crosses over the land on the eastern side it drops this water in the form of rain. This makes the eastern forest far wetter than it was before the division. It has become a rain forest. The western environment has changed very little.
In the eastern, now, rain forest many of the plants that thrived there before either die off or change to survive in this new environment. Due to this change in environment the bugblatter beast’s favorite game virtually disappears. It fails to adapt to the changes. However in the new environment game is plentiful but the bugblatter needs to change to be successful and eventually it does. Lets say that in the rain forest the bugblatter beasts large size makes it difficult to get through the underbrush and smaller thinner ones tend to be more successful. Slowly the eastern species, because smaller ones breed more often, gets smaller and thinner.
In the western forest the bugblatter lives its life the same way it ever did and very little change happens.
Do you agree that this scenario is possible under your definition of change or adaptation? If so, do we now have two separate species of bugblatter beast? If not, why? Why can’t a species change in the manner I described?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 12:39 AM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 2:49 AM Jefferinoopolis has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 143 of 314 (660012)
04-20-2012 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
04-20-2012 10:00 AM


Re: still not right ... in a long string of posts that are not right
Hi RAZD
After we get a few basic answers from the local creationists, could we (I actually mean people like you and some others here), discuss what was mentioned by Admin (the statement from creos that errors can't produce advantages, or something like that).
It also fits in with the thread; novel features.
The words are well defined in any dictionary; it seems as if creos have changed the meaning of the words "novel" and "feature" to read something like "molecules to man" or "dirt to man".
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence
Edited by Pressie, : Changed whole post
Edited by Pressie, : Changed last paragraph
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed whole answer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2012 10:00 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2012 11:31 AM Pressie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 144 of 314 (660016)
04-20-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Pressie
04-20-2012 10:28 AM


Re: still not right ... in a long string of posts that are not right
Hi Pressie,
After we get a few basic answers from the local creationists, could we (I actually mean people like you and some others here), discuss what was mentioned by Admin (the statement from creos that errors can't produce advantages, or something like that).
I know of some examples, and they can be added to this thread at any time. One example already provided was by Tangle in Message 61:
quote:
... the the Italian Wall Lizard.
This creature managed to evolve new features in 25 years - ...
It also fits in with the thread; novel features.
It certainly is topical, as the intent of this thread was to discuss the evolution of novel features without needing to get into the issue of speciation.
The words are well defined in any dictionary; it seems as if creos have changed the meaning of the words "novel" and "feature" to read something like "molecules to man" or "dirt to man".
Or to mean "a change big enough that I just can't believe it happened in one individual ... so it must be false ... " type of nonsense.
Enjoy

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 143 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 10:28 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 145 of 314 (660081)
04-20-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by intellen
04-20-2012 2:35 AM


Re: To PRESSIE
You don't know what I've discovered. Then, why do you say that?
Because I do know, from reading your messages, that you don't know much about evolution, which is what I said. I know this 'cos you keep misstating the theory, so unless this arises from willful dishonesty, it must necessarily arise from ignorance. You need to start again from the beginning, and find out the role of mutation and of natural selection in the theory, otherwise you will continue to make the crass blunders which so far have been the most egregious feature of your posts.
Plenty of people have explained it to you on this thread alone. Also there are textbooks available which would assist you. If after consulting these resources you still have difficulty in understanding evolution, I shall see what I can do to help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 2:35 AM intellen has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 146 of 314 (660082)
04-20-2012 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by intellen
04-19-2012 10:00 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
2. Yes, there will be competition but the competition will never be the caused of those animals to evolve to another species. Either they fight or die. That means, natural selection has no part in the origin of species.
Grate now if 2 doggies are borne one has a "bad" mutation that makes him slow lazy and a bad hunter, the other has a good mutation making him faster stronger and a better hunter witch of these doggies will find a female and have children. Some of the children inherit this mutation.
This is natural selection.
3. And the low population of any organisms will never diminish the possibility of nat selc to that population, thus, showing that ToE and evolution is wrong. How low is low is maybe debatable but small population has no possibility of evolution.
Actually the possibility of evolution is grater a smaller gene pool has a better chance of excepting a trait as dominant if they are lucky that trait "good" if not its "bad" and they will likely go extinct. A relatively recent bottle neck in lions made their sperm all fucked up 3 headed sperm cells or 3 tailed ones ... normally this change would be filtered out by natural selection because it gives lions a worse chance of breeding successfully but since the gene pool was small the change stuck
but it dosent matter what i say or show you. I can tie you to a chair and force you to watch an experiment where purely trough natural selection and random mutation i make mice as smart as humans you would still deny that it happened. Why because it shatters your grate illusion of a god who made a special place for you after you die where you will meat all your friends and family and your pets, and where no evil atheist will try to make you open your mind.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by intellen, posted 04-19-2012 10:00 PM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 3:09 AM frako has not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 147 of 314 (660106)
04-21-2012 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Jefferinoopolis
04-20-2012 10:21 AM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
BY JEFFERINPOOLIS
Consider this scenario:
A species, we’ll call it a bugblatter beast, is adapted to live in the forest similar to the forests found in southern Canada and the Northern US. This forest is quite extensive and the bugblatter beast’s range extends through the whole forest.
Let’s say that the bugblatter is living during an ice age and as the ice retreats and sea levels rise this forest is cut in half by a new sea. You now have two different populations of bugblatter beasts that cannot interact with each other. On the west side of the sea you have the western bugblatter and on the eastern side you have the eastern bugblatter.
The prevailing winds in this area blow from west to east. As the wind blows over the water it picks up moisture and when it crosses over the land on the eastern side it drops this water in the form of rain. This makes the eastern forest far wetter than it was before the division. It has become a rain forest. The western environment has changed very little.
In the eastern, now, rain forest many of the plants that thrived there before either die off or change� to survive in this new environment. Due to this change in environment the bugblatter beast’s favorite game virtually disappears. It fails to adapt to the changes. However in the new environment game is plentiful but the bugblatter needs to change� to be successful and eventually it does. Lets say that in the rain forest the bugblatter beasts large size makes it difficult to get through the underbrush and smaller thinner ones tend to be more successful. Slowly the eastern species, because smaller ones breed more often, gets smaller and thinner.
In the western forest the bugblatter lives its life the same way it ever did and very little change happens.
Do you agree that this scenario is possible under your definition of change or adaptation�? If so, do we now have two separate species of bugblatter beast? If not, why? Why can’t a species change in the manner I described?
OK, let us play with ur scenario.
1. Ok, I don't know why those population of bugblatter had become "It fails to adapt to the changes." in your post. Why they failed? They had feet, right? They had instinct to protect their lives, right? So, why they failed? Did you never think about it?
2. "Change" to what? To eat? To gather food? To hide? To reproduce? Or "change" of morphology? Please, be specific. That is I called messing in science by ToE. It is only one example. ToE is very good at this. Be specific and realistic.
3. They will change but they will never become two different species. Since species is defined as any organism that can mate and reproduce. Maybe, they will never mate themselves at first since they had the instinct of "territorial supremacy" to be protected when the two separated group meet. But no, evolution will never kicks in and there will never be no new species.
Have you ever seen a dog having sex with a pig? I mean, or the dog likes to have sex to pig? I mean, the definition of species in science today is vague! The definition of species cannot be used in asexual organisms, my goodness, ToE had been around 150 years of its boasting, why ToE could not even define a single simple term like "species" that could fit all organisms? Wasting all grants and funds....let us go back to our topic...
Why do I know? How do I know? Since I came from a tropical country but I live now in a cold place. My body is changing too BUT I am not evolving to something. That is personal experience, of course, I am an individual. But, I mean, I can test myself and verify it. But we cannot test and verify evolution and ToE, a sad part in science.
To be specific, my skin is becoming whitish and I'm becoming more handsome. Handsome is a good trait. More handsome, more girls (just a possibility)! ROFL!!
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Jefferinoopolis, posted 04-20-2012 10:21 AM Jefferinoopolis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2012 5:01 AM intellen has replied
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 04-21-2012 7:25 AM intellen has not replied
 Message 219 by Jefferinoopolis, posted 04-23-2012 11:20 AM intellen has not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 148 of 314 (660108)
04-21-2012 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by frako
04-20-2012 6:54 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
Grate now if 2 doggies are borne one has a "bad" mutation that makes him slow lazy and a bad hunter, the other has a good mutation making him faster stronger and a better hunter witch of these doggies will find a female and have children. Some of the children inherit this mutation.
This is natural selection.
OK, hilarious!
Let us not go to doggie society so that we can study a real realistic world. Let us go to the human society. I think it is pretty easy for you. Do you think that a genius Einstein had reproduced another genius Einstein (his children)? Genius is a good trait! That is how natural selection, right? But...oh my goodness, I could not stop laughing! What did you see in reality?
Or did the father of Einstein is a genius too? lol! ToE is really hilarious!
I mean, not because generation1 (gen1) had trait1 will also be present in gen2 and be present to gen3! You see, that is a fantasy from ToE. I mean, yes, there is no "perfect clone" organism, but there are no organisms that are evolving. They are only adapting to live, not evolving to become new species.
Actually the possibility of evolution is grater a smaller gene pool has a better chance of excepting a trait as dominant if they are lucky that trait "good" if not its "bad" and they will likely go extinct. A relatively recent bottle neck in lions made their sperm all fucked up 3 headed sperm cells or 3 tailed ones ... normally this change would be filtered out by natural selection because it gives lions a worse chance of breeding successfully but since the gene pool was small the change stuck
That is a scenario of ToE. But that is not the real life in all organisms.
What, the lions? So, the lions had studied their lessening population and found out they should shot those sperms more to solve those problem?? And asked nature (natural selection) to kick in so that the lions can shot those sperms? ROFL!! My goodness! Are you talking anime??? Where did they study? How do they know?
OR
When is the time natural selection saw this problem?? ROFL!! Oh, if this is science, I had rather cling to animeism!
I love science, really love naturalistic science. But you are giving me hilarious post. Are you joking?
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by frako, posted 04-20-2012 6:54 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2012 3:41 AM intellen has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 149 of 314 (660110)
04-21-2012 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by intellen
04-21-2012 3:09 AM


Intelligence
Do you really not see how intelligence is a trait that might have a selective advantage?
No, possibly you don't.
In that case, feel free to be even more stupid than you are now, especially when crossing the road, and see how you get on.
Alternatively, you could try to be more intelligent. But you might have to give up being a creationist.
We evolutionists think that intelligence is a desirable trait, but then we're biased 'cos it's one that we possess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 3:09 AM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 4:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 150 of 314 (660111)
04-21-2012 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by intellen
04-19-2012 10:08 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
Actually, "intellen", I was responding to your Message 47, wherein you stated:
quote:
PLEASE, remember that: random mutation will not kick in IF there is no new ecological challenges. That is the post of RAZD and caffeine
You were dead wrong. Not only in your inability to understand RAZD's and caffeine's posts, but, obviously, in your gross mistatement. As I explained in my Message 86.
IOW, you were indeed talking about mutations, others had tried to explain it to you, and you still did not understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by intellen, posted 04-19-2012 10:08 PM intellen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024