Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   But it takes so long to evolve
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 54 (103534)
04-28-2004 8:45 PM


How does millions of years solve problems evolutionarily?
Say you have travelled as an ape-man to yonder place with no trees. Even if you migrate to hostile and barren places, no change can surely happen - evolutionarily, which is needed, within those migration periods. If you move completely - and your journey takes fifty years, and you are now in an open region with the beasts that tare the flesh, you cannot evolve untill millions of years have passed. Wouldn't you have surely had to go back to the trees while waiting to evolve?
Surely it takes too long to evolve. Forced changes will take ages, you will be extinct by then.
What if a species needs wings tomorrow, and the change will take place in M.O.Y only. Won't that species simply go extinct?
I want no off-topic rhetoric!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 04-28-2004 11:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 04-29-2004 12:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 5 by Gary, posted 04-29-2004 2:19 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2004 5:06 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 10:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 04-29-2004 6:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 54 (103575)
04-28-2004 11:37 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 54 (103583)
04-28-2004 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-28-2004 8:45 PM


Yes, evolution takes a long time. If you need wings tomorrow, you will become extinct. Happened many times.
But I think you missunderstand how things happen.
Changes happen. They happen all the time. We are still evolving and will continue to do so.
Evolution is not driven by a journey. Instead, it just happens. A few creatures are born that are different then all their other kith, kin and kind. Because they are different, they may (or may not) have some small advantage that helps them survive. For example, maybe they can stand up straighter and so see predators sooner.
Often, the small change ALLOWS that subgroup to expand into new territory where they have a better chance of survival. It is not the move from one nitch to another that drives the change, but rather the change allows expansion into a less competitive nitch.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2004 8:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 4 of 54 (103586)
04-29-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-28-2004 8:45 PM


Mike writes:
What if a species needs wings tomorrow, and the change will take place in M.O.Y only. Won't that species simply go extinct?
That's exactly what it'll do - die out. That's why so many species are going extinct right now - we humans can change whole biomes way faster than most natural processes can. And I've seen the estimate that over 99% of ALL species that have ever existed are already extinct.
We can easily imagine that any "early ape-man" that travelled out to the treeless veldt sure enough became cheetah bait. But his cousins that stayed near the water holes, and let the savannah come to them over a thousand generations as the African climate dried out - they fared a little better. Yeah, evolution takes a long time. But just we mammal-like critters have had 250,000,000 years. That is a long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2004 8:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 54 (103649)
04-29-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-28-2004 8:45 PM


Evolution isn't need-based. It’s just a matter of gradual changes over time. Whatever survives passes on its genetic material, while whatever dies before it can reproduce does not. Animals do not migrate successfully to hostile environments - rather, the environment may change, giving the animal a chance to expand, or natural selection may favor certain traits, such as upright posture or a large brain.
Evolution doesn't take millions of years. It does occur over millions of years, but new species can form through genetic drift in less than one hundred years. Take the mosquitoes in subways in England for example. They are descended from mosquitoes which first inhabited the subways when they were first built. After a few decades, they were no longer able to breed with mosquitoes from outside the subway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2004 8:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 6 of 54 (103673)
04-29-2004 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-28-2004 8:45 PM


Wouldn't you have surely had to go back to the trees while waiting to evolve?
If you think that waiting in a tree is going to result in the right adaptations for life in open grass, then you have still not understood what has been explained about a gazillion times here. Well, for the gazillionfirst time: if life evolves in trees, it will adapt to the circumstances in trees. A species may become very agile in jumping or swinging from tree to tree (like gibbons are) or it may become very good at holding on to a branch while thoughtfully contemplating the next move (like sloths), but nothing about life in trees would induce adaptations suitable for life in the open savanah. Only when tree life becomes a liability, a species may have to move elsewhere and adapt to its new surroundings. Many individuals will not survive, and the species may even go extinct. But if it doesn't, it will adapt to whatever changing environment it finds itself in, and not to an environment it is not in.

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2004 8:45 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 9:45 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 54 (103692)
04-29-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Parasomnium
04-29-2004 5:06 AM


Yes, and that adaptation will take millions of years.
If I am forced to live in the trees with my family - we are not going to survive if we need monkey atributes.
Don't get me wrong, I already know the explanations of natural selection. But I want to bring this topic forward so people will focus on just how important the point is.
but nothing about life in trees would induce adaptations suitable for life in the open savanah.
What would INDUCE adaptations? I thought mutations were random!?! Surely you COULD have open-territory traits that come to pass while living in trees - and those traits are culled as they are useless in trees. - I thought that would be a better explanation - ho hum.
If you think that waiting in a tree is going to result in the right adaptations for life in open grass, then you have still not understood what has been explained about a gazillion times here.
I said "waiting in a tree" to make the point perfectly and sarcastically understood - understood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2004 5:06 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 04-29-2004 9:52 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 04-29-2004 9:55 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2004 10:37 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 8 of 54 (103694)
04-29-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 9:45 AM


Consider the Gorrila, the Chimpanzee and the Gibbon. Three primates.
Gorrilas are primarily ground dwellers, Gibbons are primarily arboreal, while Chimpanzees spend significant amounts of time in trees and significant amounts of time on the ground.
The hominids did not suddenly evolve from tree-dwelling apes, they evolved from apes which, like chimps, already spent a significant amount of their time on the ground. So it was not a matter of developing for a terrestrial lifestyle while swinging around in trees, but a matter of developing a terrestrial lifestyle further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 9:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 54 (103695)
04-29-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 9:45 AM


Mike,
What would INDUCE adaptations? I thought mutations were random!?! Surely you COULD have open-territory traits that come to pass while living in trees - and those traits are culled as they are useless in trees. - I thought that would be a better explanation - ho hum.
Most primates can exist on the ground to a greater or lesser degree. Why come down from the trees at all? F O O D. Pure & simple. The moment you start making use of a previously untapped food supply on the ground you introduce new selective pressures. It doesn't mean you have to give up your arboreal existance, it just means you are better served by being a generalist (in this case). Of course, you will find yourself with what's known as an "exaptation" (aka preadaption) if deforestation starts. The selective pressures for terrestrialism vs. arborealism will swing strongly in favour of terrestrialism when forest becomes more like savannah, assuming you are at least partially a ground dweller.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-29-2004]

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 9:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 54 (103697)
04-29-2004 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-28-2004 8:45 PM


I don't see the problem. There is no simple dichotomy between living in and out of trees. The average domestic cat is not basically arboreal like a monkey but can scoot up a tree to escape a dog quickly enough.
So maybe your "ape-man"'s ancestors start by spending a little more time on the ground. As time goes on they start to venture out of the forest on short expeditions. The expeditions take more and more time and they take advantage of small stands of trees outside the forests.
There's no need for a sudden move. Just a gradual change of lifestyle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2004 8:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 54 (103703)
04-29-2004 10:23 AM


Mark: Okay fair enough. I guess new selective pressures would explain it somewhat. So then - it is explained by means of natural selection for you. The ground dwellers would survive - and keep their specialist ground - dwelling. I fail to see how that would change them morphologically though.
Jar says:
Evolution is not driven by a journey. Instead, it just happens.
Paul says:
There's no need for a sudden move. Just a gradual change of lifestyle.
Coragyps says:
That's exactly what it'll do - die out.
Gary says:
but new species can form through genetic drift in less than one hundred years.
So does it just happen? Is it a gradual change? Do we die out? Or do we evolve in a hundred years?
Coragyps said that 99% of species ever to exist are extinct. I guess this would explain that my argument is atleast somewhat true?

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 10:43 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 16 by jar, posted 04-29-2004 10:56 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 12 of 54 (103710)
04-29-2004 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 9:45 AM


Crikey, you guys are quick! I wonder if I should still bother. O well, why not...
What would INDUCE adaptations? I thought mutations were random!?!
Mutations are random. What is induced is the keeping of certain traits (resulting from those random mutations), which happen to provide a benefit under the given circumstances, in that they keep the critter alive long enough, in the face of fierce competition, for it to produce offspring.
Surely you COULD have open-territory traits that come to pass while living in trees - and those traits are culled as they are useless in trees. - I thought that would be a better explanation - ho hum.
Indeed you could, I think we can agree on this. Traits that do not provide an advantage or are even disadvantageous (again, both varieties resulting from random mutations), fade away, the former more gradually than the latter. Ho hum to you, sir.
I said "waiting in a tree" to make the point perfectly and sarcastically understood - understood?
I perfectly (but not sarcastically) understood that you used "waiting in a tree" as a slightly humourous way of saying "living in trees for an extended period of time", and I picked up on it, no offence intended. And I also realise the 'gazillion' may have sounded a bit harsh, for which I offer you my apologies.

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 9:45 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 10:52 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 54 (103711)
04-29-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 10:23 AM


Looking at the points raised.
1) Yes you can get a new species in 100 years but it won't be very different from the species it branched off from. If you're lucky there might be a superficial but obvious difference - but on the other hand it might be distincuishable only by breeding experiments.
2) Sudden changes of environment are not good - if a species is not well adapted enough to make a living in the new environment it will go extinct (and how well adapted that has to be will depend on the competition).
3) Gradual changes of behaviour - slowly moving into a new environment will still making use of the environment the species is moving out of are easier to handle. The creatures still get some of the benefits of their existing adaptions but also experience a selective pressure to do better in the new environment.
So there is no one answer. Assuming that the new environment is different enough to require significant physical changes to do well the options are really down to slowly adapt (although that is probably hundreds of thousands of years rather than millions) or (relatively) quickly die out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 10:23 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 10:47 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2004 11:04 AM PaulK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 54 (103713)
04-29-2004 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
04-29-2004 10:43 AM


So then we did die out afterall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 10:43 AM PaulK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 54 (103716)
04-29-2004 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Parasomnium
04-29-2004 10:37 AM


'gazillion' may have sounded a bit harsh, for which I offer you my apologies.
Shucks folk - no apology needed.
Indeed you could, I think we can agree on this. Traits that do not provide an advantage or are even disadvantageous (again, both varieties resulting from random mutations),fade away
I'm glad we agree - I thought I was going nuts again. Yes - that's it, so natural selection would get rid of the ground-dweller trait if they were still tree dwelling - though perhaps not altogether. Maybe the ground-dwelling trait could already be in the gene pool of that species, from the past. Now I'm just trying to confuse myself!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2004 10:37 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2004 11:06 AM mike the wiz 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