|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Electric Eel - more evidence against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
As is the electric eel, when you take into account account accumulative change over time, with the filter of the environment the eel was in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Haldir writes: 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. Click the "peek" button at the bottom right of any message with quotes and you'll see how they did it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Haldir writes: 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. Unfortunately, I'm not much help here. Maybe we both need to learn a bit more before drawing any conclusions :]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, significantly more complex systems could only evolve if the changes were cumulative (meaning that the changes cumulatively added a selective advantage). Nonsense. Advantageous changes don't get selected; seriously disadvantageous changes that prevent reproduction get selected.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Advantageous changes don't get selected; seriously disadvantageous changes that prevent reproduction get selected. I disagree with the statement. It expresses the situation from only one point of view. If an individual is born with a mutation that will be fatal before it can reproduce then expressing it as you have seems to be the most sensible way to describe it. But it is just as true that an individual without the mutation has been selected positively. It's a filter. Both things which fall through it and things which don't have been selected. Some positively and some negatively. So you don't use the word selected all naked like that. It is selected for or selected against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Advantageous changes don't get selected; seriously disadvantageous changes that prevent reproduction get selected. As I understand your statement it is wrong. Genomicus is also not quite correct for different reasons. Changes that enhance the chances of generating viable offspring do enhance the prospects of a population dominating over those without the advantage. Selection is both a negative (purifying selection) as well as a positive process.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
As is the electric eel, when you take into account account accumulative change over time, with the filter of the environment the eel was in. Correct -- if there is an evolutionary pathway that consists of steps that provide a selective advantage, there is no real problem for the evolution of that system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, yes, some changes may give some critters an advantage BUT only in a very limited sense.
It is only when those critters in a population don't reproduce that a trait gets filter out. Sexual selection is a good example. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, I should have been clearer.
See Message 68.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Nonsense. Advantageous changes don't get selected; seriously disadvantageous changes that prevent reproduction get selected. Others have already responded to this. I advise you to study the theory you subscribe to. There is positive selection and purifying selection. This is pretty basic, and actually there are ways to compare DNA sequences and see if purifying or positive selection has dominated their evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And I responded to them.
see Message 68.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Genomicus is also not quite correct for different reasons. I don't mind being wrong, but I'm interested in where you think my arguments above have been flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Again, yes, some changes may give some critters an advantage BUT only in a very limited sense. Citation, please. Positive selection can be weak or it can be strong; so, too, can purifying selection be weak or strong. Where does this "but only in a very limited sense" come into play?
It is only when those critters in a population don't reproduce that a trait gets filter out. Not necessarily. A trait can be lost from a population through genetic drift, or it can be replaced by another, more advantageous trait (positive selection).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think I explained already.
A good example is sexual selection. In some animals for example a dominate male may become the only male reproducing and so his genes are the ones that get passed on, but only until that dominate male gets replaced. But in other animals species and even in the case above, other males do "get a little strange" at times and so their genes too remain in the population. Dominate a population is not synonymous with exclusivity. And this is important in the example of this thread. Traits that are not seriously advantageous or disadvantageous get passed on. Filtering is only at the extremes.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
And this is important in the example of this thread. Traits that are not seriously advantageous or disadvantageous get passed on. Filtering is only at the extremes. Traits that offer neither an advantage or a disadvantage don't all get fixed in the population. This is not the same thing, of course, as merely being passed onto offspring, but fixation (at least the general spreading of the trait throughout much of the population) in a population is hugely important when it comes to the evolution of biological systems. Simply getting the trait passed onto your offspring won't necessarily do the trick since that trait can be lost in the population.
Filtering is only at the extremes. Beneficial traits can get lost, too. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024