Hi zi ko,
... Thus the directed part of the evolution would have to be in manipulation of the ecological environment, yes?
I suppose i can agree with above. Is there something more after that?
The formation of novel traits, which begins the process of increasing the diversity within living species, that leads to phyletic speciation, and can lead to divergent speciation and the increase in the diversity of species on earth:
quote:
(From my proposed thread Introduction to Evolution, Message 1): If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic change in species, or phyletic speciation. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
...
(2) The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show phyletic change in species (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.
The "
the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population" is the formation of novel traits, the topic of this thread.
Remember that mutations affect the
genotype and selection (ecological or sexual) operates on the
phenotype (the expressed traits of the individuals), that it is a two-step dance, and not just hopping along on one leg.
Isn't this just selection?
Ithink it is both. Selection and guided mutations.
And I can agree with that, as working hypothesis.
It has always seemed to me that evolution just shows the
how of the process: that science, in general does not, cannot, really address the whys (purpose\causal\intent), because of the way science is formulated -- not because there is any intended attempt to eliminate it from science, philosophical or theistic consideration, but because science is just not capable of addressing those issues.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : format
Edited by RAZD, : more format
Edited by RAZD, : clrty