1 piece of evidence to disprove evolution..

Hi Zealot

quote:

---

Ok, perhaps I can put this in a better way. There realy shouldn't exists a lion today with an 'inferior' claw correct ? Considering all other things equal, lions with superior claws (genetically) should not be found with lions with 'inferior' claws. Thus, as far as the lion is concerned its claw should be perfect. Now however, a new mutation occurs which provides one of the lions with poinsonous claws. All things else being equal, or more or less equal, IE: same sperm count as they all are pretty much from the same genetic line, this lion with its mutation should reign supreme ?

---

However, relatively unfit members of a group exist in every generation in every population. In your lion example, there is a dominant male in each pride that achieves its rank through aggression. Sometimes, brothers can take over a pride i.e. force of numbers from a single male. This gives them almost exclusive access to the prides females and since a takeover usually entails the killing of all the previous dominant males cubs (to get the females back into estrus) it guarantees them the highest fitness as they are the sole males reproducing. All other males, whether their claws are sharper etc. are less fit and will not pass their traits on. If stronger claws require more food then it could be a disadvantage when attempting to dominate the other males and could be maladaptive. Similarly, poisoneous claws could entail restrictive nutritional requirements that are a disadvantage. But regardless, like in all animals, in every generation of lions there will be faster, slower, smarter, dumber and all shades in between i.e. they do not reach some ultimate goal of a super lion and then just stay there.

quote:

---

I realise an organism might not have a 'perfect' organ ect, as it would still be evolving, and there is no 'goal' for the ultimate creature, however surely by default that would be achieved ? Taking all other things into account and assuming that something which has evolved for billions of years should be fertile and no other similar species near it will be 1 000 times more fertile. Yes I see your argument that a more fertile organism would produce more offspring etc, however those would be less suited to achieve reproductive age and also reproducing, especially in the case when they compete for reproduction rights as in male lions.

---

Not really. Over time some traits can become less adaptive. It depends on environment and selection..and chance. You seem to think that if an organism has a trait that it will march forward and become more and more adaptive but this is not the case. For example, flight does not necessarily improve in all birds i.e. there are many species of flightless birds i.e. they have lost this ability though they still have rudimentary wings...or rather than flight the wing adapts to an aquatic environment i.e. penguins. Humans have lost lots of olfactory receptor i.e. our sense of smell is getting worse relative to other primates...not better and so on and so on.

quote:

---

Something as drastic as poisonous fangs vs non-poisonous fangs would surely also easily overcome the offspring of another more fertile organism ?

---

Not necessarily. If more offpring of the more fertile organism survive and reproduce themselves, over time the "poison" trait will either become extremely rare or disappear completely from the population. What we as humans might think are great traits to have are not necessarily any good in the real world...that is why so many genetically modified crops that are supposed to be pest resistant turn out to be dramatic flops.cheers,
M

Hi, I realise its all about reproductive age and sometimes past that to child rearing. Surely there is always selective pressure ? Why wouldn't there be ? I think I'll need to read the book and hire a tutor to understand So essentially substantial mutation would only occur when something's design is a liability ? IE: Just noise ? I see what you are saying , well kindof , but that doesn't seem to be in line with forinstance the general argument of avian evolution . The general argument I've heard was that a cat/snake whatever developes a mutation which provides it with a 'slight' benefit EG: Falls to the ground slower (like 2 %) than another organism of the same species. Surely the old species that fall slightly faster is not a liablility but a fatality and should be 'unnatural death'.Basically what I'm hearing is that organisms would only mutate when required ?

quote:

---

Surely there is always selective pressure ? Why wouldn't there be ?

---

Selection does not always have to be in action..you can also have evolution by genetic drift...to give you an example, take humans..we are effectively not under natural selection anymore as a species (populations or smaller groups may be though the effects are largely insignificant). Through medicine and other direct intervention, individuals who would not normally be able to reproduce (think all the fertility treatment clinics out there) can and do reproduce. You would basically have to blow away everyone in the wold outside of the !Kung to have much of an effect on human genetic diversity and gene flow among groups is world wide...however, it does not mean that allele frequencies won't change over time...

Just as an example of how the "superior design" doesn't always take over, consider the example of the zebra mussel, currently taking over most of the lakes in this part of the country. The zebra mussel is a small freshwater mussel with a striped shell, usually about an inch long.It has absolutely no advantages over indiginous mussels, none whatsoever - except for a lack of natural predators and a highly prodigious birthrate. That's all it takes, basically.And, like we said, evolution doesn't optimize. Sometimes there's little benefit to be had with a slightly better claw, or knees that don't give out when you're 60, in terms of reproductive success.

There'd really be no evolutionary benefit at all to a trait that makes life easier once you're past reproductive age, would there?

Only if it allows you to protect your children or grandchildren, or something. That's all I could think of, and at some point, your continued existence starts to divert resources that your progeny could be using, so there's a diminishing returns aspect.

Reign supreme maybe until he goes to mate. Have you ever seen cats mate? I don't think the first male lion to develop poisonous claws would ever have a chance to pass on his genes. He'd be continually killing his potential mates.------------------
Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Yet the same can be said for the preying mantis...[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-19-2003]

Uh, read a book. In mantises that's the female eating the male, after the mating. She's already got what she needs from him. She'll have his kids. His job is done, so he presents a food gift - himself.Asgara's example was of a lion killing the female before she'd had a chance to bear his children, or even recieve his sperm.Surely this difference must be apparent to you?

I dont see any mutation here other than a different species being more suited for its environment.I was trying to talk about natural selection at the point of mutation, or at the point of achieving an advantage over its fellow friends of the same species.

And that is beneficial to his future mating ? Surely a praying mantis that didn't face danger at point of mating would be more suited to spread his genes in future ? Maby I should get a book huh ?
The lion and poison example was an analogy, not all animals bite their sexual partners during mating. If we want to be more specific, the example could be shifted back to spiders. Why do some spiders have poisonous fangs and others not ?cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-19-2003]

Yeah, exactly. That was the point - that a species doesn't always need a brilliant new mutation to take over. And that a great new mutation doesn't equate with species domination.

Why does he need to mate any more? Thanks to his selfless actions he's going to be the postumously proud father of half a million or so new baby mantises, who might not have been born at all if he hadn't fed the mother. Sounds like a good deal to me. (Especially since his genitals exploded during the mating to gunk up her cloaca and prevent the deposition of the sperm of his competitors.) Because the spiders who lack them live in environments where they either aren't necessary, or would be a liability. Venom isn't universally useful. What's not to get about this?

Too much happening to fast, to really monitor things well - But I have a pretty good feeling that the current discussion has nothing to do with the topic.Closing it down.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Reopened by popular demand.AMoose