Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons

do you have a link? i am intrigued and would gladly read it

Life on a Young Planet : The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth

quote:

---

Mutation is random
Natural selection "chooses" the most advantegeous type by passing it's genes on to the next generation, thus if a mutation does not allow genes to be passed, it will not survive.
So a mutation that allows one to mate more frequently, or with more females, would be more "survivable" than one that does not allow this.
so why do we se homosexuality in the animal kingdom? If it is random mutation, it would have killed itself off after the first generation, and yet it appears again and again. so it could be the same mutation- oh wait mutation is random .

---

I see you like to live up to your screen name. Can you show me where the "gay gene" is? Can you prove that it is controlled by DNA? How about the studies that show homosexuality being higher in areas of high populations? Wouldn't homosexualility be a favorable trait in order to stop in fighting and slow population growth in order to stay in balance with the ecosystem? Don't forget, if the predator is too good he goes extinct, he kills off all of the prey. I am proud that you have come closer to the actual definition of evolution, maybe you can start to see its possible effects in actual environments.

Flies, while these statements may be obviously false to us, they may not be to A. Why don't you explain exactly where he/she is in error?

It's called "kin selection". It explains a whole lot of things, including altruistic behavior. Basically it says that because you share genes with your relatives, sometimes you can pass more copies on by protecting your relatives and their children than by having/protecting children yourself.So the "gay gene" could very well persist in a population under natural selection, because it's not as disadvantageous as you think.

But it would not be passed on as the "host " would not want to copulate and thus not evolve. sorry I don't see your point.
I keep hearing survival of the fittest, but that is not the case. for evolution to work it must be survival of the "matest" ( sorry but I like it) It doesn't matter if the animal lives long or well, only that it passes on it's genes. anything after that would be "extra".
so only genes that improve quality ( more successful attempts) or quantity ( more attempts across the board) would pass on. so logically this would lead to either orgy type behavior, or super sperm capable of breeding with a large number of "species" or common ancestor, or hybrid ( take your pick on terminalolgy) this is what i was refering to with the chimp comment in an earlier post. hope I cleared things up

Thank you, i will comment later this weekend after i have analyzed it.

"Can you show me where the "gay gene" is? "Well are you saying the first cell was gay? otherwise it had to evolve and thus it is up to you to prove how it exists in your current definition of evolution"Wouldn't homosexualility be a favorable trait in order to stop in fighting and slow population growth in order to stay in balance with the ecosystem? "
they choose to be gay, but mutation is random, so the gene randomly chooses to be gay? how is this logical?
"Don't forget, if the predator is too good he goes extinct, he kills off all of the prey. " which would evolve shorter lifespans, but not gayness according to how everyone previous has describe evolution- remember must mate to pass on the gene- if food is short and gayness randomly appeared, it would not mate and thus pass one.
Perhaps I am butchering your point so if you wish to elaborate i would be willing to hear it out.

Keep trying. First, basic genetics: the "gay gene" is probably recessive, and in humans, sex-linked. So it's entirely possible to have one copy of the "gay gene" and not be gay, just as you can have a gene for blond hair and not be blond.So, an organism that's recessive-gay might use it's resources not on it's own reproduction, but on the reproduction of it's siblings - who carry copies of the gay gene. In this way, the gay gene is passed on.What you seem to forget is that you share genes with your siblings. Sometimes you pass on more of the genes you have by protecting the genes your siblings have. That's kin selection. Same thing. "fittest" doesn't mean "best" in a biological context. It means "left the most offspring." In other words the woman with 10 kids in the trailer park is more fit than the Oxford-degreed Wall Street stockbroker with no kids. Which we observe in many species.But it won't be like that in every species, because shotgun-insemination is not advantageous to every species. Sometimes it's better to concentrate your efforts on the survival of one or a few children as opposed to creating as many children as possible. Generally this is driven by the fact that males and females often have totally opposite reproductive goals.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-09-2004]

"Keep trying. First, basic genetics: the "gay gene" is probably recessive, and in humans, sex-linked. So it's entirely possible to have one copy of the "gay gene" and not be gay, just as you can have a gene for blond hair and not be blond."
I was waiting for someone to bring this up
so let us say that at one time a recessive gay gene mutates randomly. We agree that it cannot be dominate for it will not pass on. We also agree that mutations are random. Now let me see if i have this right. let us say A= straight gene and B = Gay
all creatures up till now have AA and now one has AB so they have a child and it is possible to have children that are
AA,AA,AA, AB or a 1/4 chance of continuing the gene. let us say that they have 4 children of each and the AB child mates with an AA again 1/4 but this is culumaltive with the previous 1/4 or (if my math is right 1/16) so on and so forth until another identical gene mutates that is capable of creating the BB child- however many have stated evolution is a slow process so it may not happen for let us say 8 generations so you have a ( 4 to the 8 power ) chance of having an AB gene still residing in the original strain-- that is unless evolution is fast, in which I want to see the new strain for fruit flies i had mentioned.

I'm not inclined to be as absolute about it, but sure. A dominant gay gene would tend to be maladaptive. (Overlooking the fact that no gene can make you havesex with members of your owngender, only make you want to.) Well, to be most correct with the nomenclature you'd write it as "H" for heterosexual and "h" for homosexual, so that a heterozygous carrier of the gene would be expressed as Hh. (Didn't you do Purnett squares in high school?) In a significantly large population, and at the observed rate of mutation in most species, I don't see that's a low figure. Especially since you overlook the fact that organisms usually have way more than 4 children in their lives.

Well, then maybe you were looking for this: Observed Instances of SpeciationScroll down to "5.3: The Fruit Fly Literature."

looked at it, but mating habits and sterility do not a species make. it did not evolve into another species. ( keep in mind if I don't believe in evolution, this is merely behavioral adjustment , or adaption if you will ( mating choice) and my version of mutation (harmful only))this is the experiement that would convince me.
100 fruit flies ( any amount will do) limit fruit (whatever the food source is) , but supply a large supply of another food supply that the flies cannot currently digest ( meat let's say) now if evolution exists, the fly that randomly mutates the ablity to eat meat will emerge and become the meat fly- new species and will take over the group. It currently cannot do something and now it can. - but- you have to prove to me that there is no gene already in the fly to allow this, otherwise it is adaption and not evolution.

To the contrary - a "species" is a reproductive community. If you want to talk about species in a biological concept, guess what? We're gonna use the Biological Species Concept, from that page:

quote:

---

Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

---

How?How would you tell the difference between a "new" capability and one that was always there but hidden? You're assuming we can just look at a given genetic sequence and automatically know what it does. Adaptation is evolution. Adaptation is a change in allele frequencies. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies. What's the difference? Since what you're asking for is evidence of speciation through adaptation to environment in Drosophila melanogaster:

quote:

---

Ecological adaptation during incipient speciation revealed by precise gene replacement.

​

Greenberg AJ, Moran JR, Coyne JA, Wu CI.

​

Department of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.

​

To understand the role of adaptation in speciation, one must characterize the ecologically relevant phenotypic effects of naturally occurring alleles at loci potentially causing reproductive isolation. The desaturase2 gene of Drosophila melanogaster is such a locus. Two geographically differentiated ds2 alleles underlie a pheromonal difference between the Zimbabwe and Cosmopolitan races. We used a site-directed gene replacement technique to introduce an allele of ds2 from the Zimbabwe population into Cosmopolitan flies. We show that the Cosmopolitan allele confers resistance to cold as well as susceptibility to starvation when the entire genetic background is otherwise identical. We conclude that ecological adaptation likely accompanies sexual isolation between the two behavioral races of D. melanogaster.

---

From Ecological adaptation during incipient speciation revealed by precise gene replacement - PubMedOr

quote:

---

Isolation of a Drosophila melanogaster desiccation resistant mutant.

​

Telonis-Scott M, Hoffmann AA.

​

Centre for Environmental Stress and Adaptation Research (CESAR), La Trobe University, Plenty Rd Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Melbourne, Australia. m.telonis@latrobe.edu.au

​

Mutagenesis provides a powerful way of isolating genetic and physiological processes underlying complex traits, but this approach has rarely been applied to investigating water balance in insects. Here, we describe the isolation of a desiccation-resistant mutant of Drosophila melanogaster. Mutagenesis of a desiccation sensitive line resulted in the isolation of a mutant with two-fold higher resistance. The mutant was partially dominant and mapped to the second chromosome. Mutant flies showed lower rates of water loss, and had a higher water content, but showed no change in body mass, glycogen content, hemolymph volume or water content tolerated at death from desiccation. These physiological differences are contrasted to changes in lines of D. melanogaster mass selected for altered stress resistance. Isolation of this mutant provides an opportunity to identify a gene involved in water balance in insects.

---

From Isolation of a Drosophila melanogaster desiccation resistant mutant - PubMedThe last one is a beneficial mutation, by the way, which you don't seem to think can exist....

I will look into the 2 section you gave, but
"Adaptation is evolution. Adaptation is a change in allele frequencies. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies. What's the difference?"
how to give you my point of view... well adaption takes aspects that are already occuring in the system and tweaks them- i guess similar to overclocking a computer- could be said that it runs better, but it runs hotter- it always produces some heat however. So an adjustment will change how the system works, but does not change the components ( this is a horrible analogy, but I will work on it) and evolution is like putting new parts in. So when I talk of mutations, i am speaking of things that have not existed in the species before- such as meat eating fruit flys ( if we could test their genes to ensure that they do not have the ability to create a meat dissolving enzyme or some such) I would have to think of a better way to do the test, because i think it has flaws, but i will stick with it for now, until i have time to ponder it.