|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Electric Eel - more evidence against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
There is no requirement in the Theory of Evolution that any change be advantageous. Changes can be advantageous, neutral or disadvantageous but all three types of change can be passed on as long as the change is not so disadvantageous that it keeps the critter from living long enough to reproduce. Yea, but if the only evolutionary pathway to get from trait A to trait B is one that consists solely of neutral mutations, that trait is evolving solely by chance, since natural selection isn't in the equation. This makes the evolution of that trait less likely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
How does it make anything more or less likely... With natural selection out of the equation for the evolution of this trait (the hypothetical trait A to trait B evolution), only random events will generate that trait (e.g., random mutation + genetic drift). The beauty of the random mutation + natural selection combination is that chance is not the only driving force: natural selection makes the evolution of traits much more likely. If only chance is able to account for the evolution of the trait, then the evolution of that trait is not as likely: there are more pathways of neutral mutations that do not yield a beneficial trait then there are pathways of neutral mutations that do yield a beneficial trait.
...and what part does more or less likely have to do with evolution anyway? Well, if the evolution of a given trait is too unlikely, then you'll have to look for another explanation for the origin of that trait.
Advantageous is only relevant when it comes to filtering. Uh, selective advantages are relevant when it comes to evolution in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Again, traits can jess keep cummulating. If natural selection is out of the equation, then only traits that can be easily arrived at through a probable combination of mutations will "jess keep cummulating."
It is only when filtering comes into play that there is any significance and then ONLY when the trait is so detrimental that it keeps the critter from reproducing. By "filtering" you mean natural selection?
Well, if the evolution of a given trait is too unlikely, then you'll have to look for another explanation for the origin of that trait. Uh, no. Why would I have to look for some other explanation? Because the evolution of the trait is too unlikely, meaning that it is implausible to have originated through evolutionary processes. Since evolution wouldn't work as a mechanistic explanation for the origin of our particular trait, it makes sense to look for another explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Hi Haldir,
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. It seems to me that each step you describe would, in fact, offer a selective advantage. One could do a broad survey of various marine organisms and see if any of them have only a few of those changes. Kirschbaum and Schwassmann (2008) have a paper on the subject of the evolution of certain features of the electric organs of Gymnotiformes. The full title: "Ontogeny and evolution of electric organs in gymnotiform fish."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Utter bullshit. Mmk.
Any changes that happen get passed on whether probable or not. If a trait requires that 15 specific amino acid substitutions occur in a given protein in order for it to arise, and none of those substitutions (either individually or in combination) offer a selective advantage until all of them have taken place, you suggest the evolution of this trait is just as plausible as the evolution of a trait that can evolve through 15 amino acid substitutions that individually offer a selective advantage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But a change is a change. Something that happens, regardless of how unlikely, happened. Sure, but not necessarily through Neo-Darwinian mechanisms. If the evolution of a given trait is implausible, then you can't say "Even if its evolution is implausible, it's here so it obviously evolved." That's illogical, and not how science works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Of course I can say that because so far that is the only evidence supported method that has been presented. Sure, you can say that, but that's not how science works. If a hypothesis is demonstrated to be unrealistic, then it's time to look for another hypothesis -- a hypothesis that better fits the data. To cling onto an implausible hypothesis isn't science: it's a dogmatic stance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But so far no such too implausible to have happened scenario has been presented. Debatable.
Improbable and unrealistic are not synonymous. Really? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Not exactly. Neutral drift will ensure that changes keep accumulating at the genetic level. And as the number of changes accumulates the probability of getting a trait which requires a particular number of mutations or more can be a lot higher than the probability of getting a particular trait. Correct. I didn't get into the whole population genetics aspect of this. It should be noted, however, that there is no guarantee that a given (neutral) mutation that is required for the evolution of a given trait will be fixed in the population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
What may seem unrealistic may seem very realistic when looking at things like evolution. Then again, it may not.
When you factor in very long times and very large numbers of iterations even the most improbable becomes a near certainty. ...unless you factor in time and large iteration levels, and still find that it is improbable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Improbable is still irrelevant. Not really. Why'd you stick to an improbable hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But they mean that traits will just keep accumulating - although much slower. Right -- but if those traits require a large number of specific mutations (each of which are individually neutral; i.e., they only offer a selective advantage when they are all present), then it will be quite a long time before each of those specific mutations are fixed in the population, or are even all present in an organism. There is an extremely large number of possible "mutation combinations" that are never fixed in a population.
It also means that there is no simple probability bound that can be applied. It will depend on time, the number of genes, and the number of possible phenotypic variations within range of the genetic change that has occurred. I concur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Sure and if you can find an example that had to have evolved in a short period of time then maybe you'll have an example. But you have to actually find one. Necessarily.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Because there is evidence that it is not impossible... "It" being the hypothetical trait B? I'm not sure what "it" means in this context.
and there is NO evidence of any designer or guider... From your perspective, there probably isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Perspective, like improbability, is fortunately irrelevant. Actually, probability/improbability is perfectly relevant, since it helps us determine how plausible a hypothesis is.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024