Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Electric Eel - more evidence against evolution
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 46 of 101 (704345)
08-08-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
08-08-2013 1:31 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
It seems to me an example of this can be found in Douglas Futuyma lactose digestion experiment with bacteria, as described in Ken Miller's pointing out of how 'Irreducible complex' systems can evolve.
The experiemnt cuts one of the 3 genes needed for lactose digestion from bacteria, so you have a culture that can not digest lactose. After many generations and letting it grow to be billions, you feed it nothing but lactose, and some of those bacteria survive. They developed , through mutation, another set of 3 genes needed to digest lactose
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html
While talking about how Intelligent Design got it wrong, it also is an example where you have to have multiple traits develop at the same time to provide new function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 08-08-2013 1:31 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 3:36 PM ramoss has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 47 of 101 (704346)
08-08-2013 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
08-08-2013 3:21 PM


Re: Immediate or Gradual?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Its not even talking about eels. Its talking generally about the evolution of the electric organs that many different types of fish have.
Yeah, I kinda figured that.
But my point is still the same... is it claiming that these differences ("sensitivity increasing by orders of magnitude") are fully required before any shocking can occur at all? Or is it claiming that these differences are present in some currently-potent species?
If it's something that's required at all... I can see how a huge change in a small time-frame seems rather incredible. It seems pretty incredible to me.
If they're just talking about how currently-existing-electrically-potent species are well beyond non-electrically-potent species... then it doesn't really seem like much of a problem for evolution (over many generations) to get to the point of these specialized, focused systems and processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2013 3:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2013 4:36 PM Stile has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 48 of 101 (704347)
08-08-2013 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ramoss
08-08-2013 3:31 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
It seems to me an example of this can be found in Douglas Futuyma lactose digestion experiment with bacteria, as described in Ken Miller's pointing out of how 'Irreducible complex' systems can evolve.
The experiemnt cuts one of the 3 genes needed for lactose digestion from bacteria, so you have a culture that can not digest lactose. After many generations and letting it grow to be billions, you feed it nothing but lactose, and some of those bacteria survive. They developed , through mutation, another set of 3 genes needed to digest lactose
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html
While talking about how Intelligent Design got it wrong, it also is an example where you have to have multiple traits develop at the same time to provide new function.
But only a few mutations were needed. There was no evolution of trait A to trait B wherein the pathway bridging those two traits could only be reached by numerous neutral mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ramoss, posted 08-08-2013 3:31 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ramoss, posted 08-08-2013 10:07 PM Genomicus has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 101 (704348)
08-08-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
08-08-2013 3:32 PM


Re: Immediate or Gradual?
If they're just talking about how currently-existing-electrically-potent species are well beyond non-electrically-potent species...
Yes, they're talking about how the sensitivity of the sensory-cells had to go up a whole lot in order to go from a mechanical detection to an electrical one. That is, the little hair-like thingys that can detect, say water movement, had to evolve a very high level of sensitivity in order to detect electric currents instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 08-08-2013 3:32 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 08-09-2013 10:39 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 101 (704349)
08-08-2013 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 3:24 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
Yea, unfortunately that's not how molecular evolution specialists look at probability. The literature contains numerous papers on the limits of evolution...
But are they determining how plausible it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 3:24 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 51 of 101 (704350)
08-08-2013 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
08-08-2013 4:40 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
But are they determining how plausible it is?
There are a number of papers in the literature that investigate the rate of emergence of complex adaptations, based on factors like, e.g., population size and the number of mutations the complex adaptation would require. If we accept your argument, then any adaptation is plausible (even if it requires, say, 100 specific substitutions before there is any selective advantage). Actually, the whole "star calcium atoms to body calcium atoms" argument can be refuted in several ways. By that argument, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that ERVs in specific genomic locations in humans and other primates share those same locations because of chance alone. You sure you want to go down that route?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2013 4:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2013 5:19 PM Genomicus has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 52 of 101 (704351)
08-08-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 5:09 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
There are a number of papers in the literature that investigate the rate of emergence of complex adaptations, based on factors like, e.g., population size and the number of mutations the complex adaptation would require.
And they use that to question the plausibility of evolution?
If we accept your argument, then any adaptation is plausible
Actually, I was saying that "star calcium atoms to body calcium atoms" is not plausible. The point was that plausibility didn't really matter.
By that argument, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that ERVs in specific genomic locations in humans and other primates share those same locations because of chance alone.
That is a possibility, but we have evidence suggesting that they're related.
You sure you want to go down that route?
No, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 5:09 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 5:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 53 of 101 (704352)
08-08-2013 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
08-08-2013 5:19 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
There are a number of papers in the literature that investigate the rate of emergence of complex adaptations, based on factors like, e.g., population size and the number of mutations the complex adaptation would require.
And they use that to question the plausibility of evolution?
No, that is not the point here. The point is that, firstly, the existence of "complex adaptations," or traits requiring multiple mutations before offering a selective advantage, are known to exist; secondly, studies have been conducted to determine the limit of evolution when it comes to complex adaptations. So, if a complex adaptation required many, many mutations before there was any selective advantage, its evolution would be implausible. These studies do not use the existence of complex adaptations to question the plausibility of evolution, because all of the complex adaptations these studies have considered so far (e.g., the evolution of disulfide bonds) are within the reach of evolution. But we actually have equations we can employ to determine if a complex adaptation is in the reach of evolutionary processes (assuming we have sufficient information about the molecular nature of that trait).
Actually, I was saying that "star calcium atoms to body calcium atoms" is not plausible. The point was that plausibility didn't really matter.
Obviously, plausibility does matter when it comes to science. That's why, e.g., molecular evolution specialists will choose phylogeny topologies with strong bootstrap values over those with weak bootstrap values (and the same is true for Bayesian phylogenetics and the associated posterior probabilities): the phylogeny topologies with weak bootstrap support are less probable -- and therefore less plausible -- than the other topologies. There are countless instances where plausibility is taken into consideration to choose one hypothesis over another, so I don't understand why you say that "plausibility doesn't really matter."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2013 5:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by onifre, posted 08-09-2013 11:57 AM Genomicus has replied
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-10-2013 1:01 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Haldir
Junior Member (Idle past 3874 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 08-07-2013


Message 54 of 101 (704353)
08-08-2013 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 10:46 AM


Thanks, I will look into info on various marine organisms and on that paper (pity I do not have the time or resources for purchasing every such publishing!). If they are selectively advantageous, I think we should expect to find some other marine organisms with only some of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 10:46 AM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 7:02 PM Haldir has replied

  
Haldir
Junior Member (Idle past 3874 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 08-07-2013


Message 55 of 101 (704354)
08-08-2013 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
08-08-2013 2:53 PM


In fact, producing electric fields has evolved independently in many different fishes, including sharks and rays.
Yes, I guess what I would need to figure out is how many steps still separate those "electric fields" from the actual electrocution ability of the electric eel.

Now, if I have my list right (and I certainly may not), the question then is whether or not these things needed to arise simultaneously, or if they could have been advantageous individually. If they are advantageous individually, might we expect to see some of these changes individually existent in other creatures, or did natural selection just happen to always put all of them together each of the 5+ times it started down this path?

Its the former. Look into the Gymnotiformes.
I will look into them. I'm sorry, but which part of my quoted paragraph did you mean by "its the former"?
P.S. How do I do properly formatted blockquotes on this forum? Just hitting reply on a post doesn't put any text in the box, and pasting it text with blockquote tags indents but with no border/coloration.
Edited by Haldir, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2013 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 7:04 PM Haldir has not replied
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 08-09-2013 7:16 AM Haldir has not replied
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-10-2013 1:13 PM Haldir has not replied

  
Haldir
Junior Member (Idle past 3874 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 08-07-2013


Message 56 of 101 (704355)
08-08-2013 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stile
08-08-2013 3:13 PM


Re: Immediate or Gradual?
Again, this seems to be a specialization thing after electrocution begins.
My understanding was that the cells have to be lined up AND the muscles have to fire at the same time AND the tuning has to be there for there to be ANY electrocuting at all, but I certainly don't have a detailed understanding of the process at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 08-08-2013 3:13 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Stile, posted 08-09-2013 8:40 AM Haldir has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 57 of 101 (704356)
08-08-2013 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Haldir
08-08-2013 6:21 PM


Thanks, I will look into info on various marine organisms and on that paper (pity I do not have the time or resources for purchasing every such publishing!).
To be sure, that's not the only paper on the subject. You'd have to do some browsing on PubMed or Google Scholar to look for more papers on the subject. I have institutional access to almost all the papers in Science Direct, so if you want to read one of the full papers, feel free to shoot me a PM with the title of the paper and I should be able to send you the PDF.
I think we should expect to find some other marine organisms with only some of them.
I think so, too. One could probably begin by looking at all the known marine organisms that have electricity-producing organs, and look at their general anatomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Haldir, posted 08-08-2013 6:21 PM Haldir has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Haldir, posted 08-09-2013 10:28 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 58 of 101 (704357)
08-08-2013 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Haldir
08-08-2013 6:24 PM


P.S. How do I do properly formatted blockquotes on this forum? Just hitting reply on a post doesn't put any text in the box, and pasting it text with blockquote tags indents but with no border/coloration.
The standard method used here is enclosing the quote with [qs], and when you come to the end of the quote, [/qs].
Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Haldir, posted 08-08-2013 6:24 PM Haldir has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 59 of 101 (704360)
08-08-2013 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 3:36 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
So, but it had to be three distinct mutations.
And that was just a very minor thing. There is not reason why more complicated structures could not form, particularly if the changes were accumulative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 3:36 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 11:09 PM ramoss has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 60 of 101 (704363)
08-08-2013 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ramoss
08-08-2013 10:07 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
So, but it had to be three distinct mutations.
Which is pretty plausible when you look at the population genetics of the situation.
And that was just a very minor thing. There is not reason why more complicated structures could not form, particularly if the changes were accumulative.
Actually, significantly more complex systems could only evolve if the changes were cumulative (meaning that the changes cumulatively added a selective advantage).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ramoss, posted 08-08-2013 10:07 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ramoss, posted 08-08-2013 11:53 PM Genomicus has replied
 Message 64 by jar, posted 08-09-2013 8:56 AM Genomicus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024