Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
117 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 115 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,039 Year: 2,787/23,288 Month: 978/1,809 Week: 97/313 Day: 14/39 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Disabling Bacterial Resistance
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3676 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 46 of 60 (217229)
06-15-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 3:26 PM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
However, why would it be selected? If it is just beneficial, I fail to see how NS could select it. I only see NS working when it has no choice. Example; Some plants with short roots can survive, but so can longer roots. Longer roots are beneficial so are selected, yet the short roots survive too? Isn't that just no change in the gene pool?

No. The measure used for gene pools is a frequency distribution. A change in the relative frequency of alleles is still evolution.

Here is a quick very basic evolution 101, defining a few important terms.

gene A gene is a particular bit of DNA at a particular location in the genome, with some functional role (usually coding for a protein). The unit of heredity.

allele A specific sequence of DNA for a gene. There can be a number of alleles for a gene in a population, and each individual has two alleles for every gene (one from each parent). In a population of organisms, there is a frequency distribution for alleles indicating how common each allele is within the population.

mutation A change in DNA sequence during replication. New alleles for a gene can arise through mutation.

genetic drift The frequency of alleles changes over time depending on how many instances happen to carry over into the next generation. Often the different alleles don't make any difference to an organism, but the frequencies will still go up or down just by the happenstance. This is called drift.

selection The number of surviving offspring for an organism in the next generation depends on all kinds of things. But sometimes having one allele or another can make a small change in the probable numbers of surviving offspring. This is called selection. Positive selection is when a certain allele increases the average expectation for numbers of surviving offspring; and negative selection is when the average expectation is reduced. This depends also on the environment, of course. The same alleles can be positively selected in one environment and negatively selected in another.

fitness The success of an individual, or of an allele, as measured by its probable frequency in successive generations. Alleles under positive selection are said to have increased fitness.

fixation Fixation is when the frequency for an allele reaches 100%. This can occur by drift, or by selection.

evolution The formal definition of evolution is often given as "change in the distributions of alleles in a population over time". Mutation, drift, and selection are all processes which impact the distributions of alleles; and hence they are mechanisms of evolution.

Now let's return to the length of roots. Typically, root length is affected by many different genes and many different alleles. There is no one gene for root length. However, if having longer roots gives an increased expectation for numbers of surviving offspring in the next generation, then this means a positive selective pressure on alleles which are positively correlated with longer roots; and negative selection for alleles that tend to lead to shorter roots.

Under this circumstance, the probability of fixation for new alleles tending to increase root length is raised; and the probability of fixation for new alleles tending to decrease root length is lowered.

Over time, the average root length of the population will increase. Looking at isolated individuals, you will still be able to find ones with short roots that prosper, but they will tend to be a bit less common. Over many generations, the mean root length will increase, and with strong selection or very long periods of time you will get to a point where you no longer find any plants with roots as short as the average length from an earlier time.

This is really basic. Selection can work on tiny changes in probability; it is simply false to say that selection only works when there is no chance at all for something with short roots to survive.

Mike; this is something of a deal-breaker for you. I've tried to set out the matter as clearly as a can in a single post, and I am happy to answer questions; but only if there seems to be some point in doing so. The basic meaning of these terms is not a point for debate. You don't get to invent new meanings for terms, and the phenomena of selection, drift, mutation, fixation, and so on are all directly observed.

Selection is a fairly simple concept, and it can be measured. There is no need for a selected allele to be essential for survival. You are trivially wrong to insist on this point, and you've been refuted on this in the thread many times. The only question at this point is whether or not you are capable of learning something.

When you solicited feedback in another thread, you got rather angry at my answers. I'm not surprised at that; I spoke strongly. It's not that I'm irritated with you. It's that over time I've come to the conclusion that it is a waste of time trying to explain such things.

You'll show I'm wrong when you can stop this childish nonsense about being "irrefutable" and show some capacity for actually learning something and grasping the points being explained.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 3:26 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 7:36 PM Sylas has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4668
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 47 of 60 (217232)
06-15-2005 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hrun
06-15-2005 3:40 PM


Re: Attempting to get to a factual discussion with Mike.
Statement 2 doesn't really matter that much pertaining to my argument. You highlighted statement 2.

Yet, as anybody can see, for example by looking at my deaf-mute cousin who is happily married and has two kids, the ability to speak is neither required for procreation nor for survival.
Therefor, I have shown that Mike's initial statement is false. Speech is an example where a certain trait can give a competitive advantage, thus can be selected for, even though it is not required for survival or procreation.

Since we can't ascertain whether speech was a mutation selected for, then I don't think it's falsified my statement. But the true form of my argument is this;

if you needed a trait you didn't have then you wouldn't survive.

You are basicaly saying that If you didn't need a trait you didn't have then you would survive. I'm not against this, it's just that my argument only deals with the modus pollens and modus tollens.of my actually argument form. (a then b, AND no b then no a).

Even if speech was a competitive advantage, I still say we have always had it since our creation. I think if you could show speech evolved from an ape, then I'd believe this. But as I said previously, it seems more plausible that we came equipped rather than coming to get equipped.

Nevertheless, this agrees with my conditional anyway; if your cousin has survived, then he didn't need speech.(positive)

A-> b would be if he did need speech then he wouldn't survive

This seems to just prove that speech doesn't necessarily help us to survive. Not that natural selection selects traits which aren't necessarily necessary to survive.

To prove Natural selection selects traits that aren't necessary for survival yet are beneficial seems to be what is needed to be shown.

Your cousin doesn't prove this, he just proves that speech isn't needed to survive.

I think your post was good. I apreciate your efforts, this is a challenge to me, I hope you apreciate the logic I have highlighted in bright white in this post, too. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 3:40 PM Hrun has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4668
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 48 of 60 (217262)
06-15-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Sylas
06-15-2005 5:06 PM


Sylas, is mikey here to learn or refute?
Sylas, thanks for yout time on gathering that information, but you're under the mistaken assumption that I don't know that stuff.

It strikes me that this information is all hypothetical and in reality, the ins and outs to the ToE are all good and make sense within the construct, but then, so does my argument.

I don't need to learn this stuff, nor need to show capacity to learn. If I did, then that would show that my motive is to impress men and learn from them. You know that's not my motive, you know that I'm a biblist who doesn't accept elemental philosophies.

As far as I can see, nature isn't a mind that it can favour beneficial selection. IMHO it's an impossibility, unless it has a brain. Even if beneficial alleles become more popular, that doesn't negate the fact that evolution seems somewhat moot. It seems that NS becomes more unlikely in my opinion. If faster runners survive, and slower ones do aswell, then slower ones don't need to be faster ones. That's a point which doesn't seem to be apreciated.

If slower ones are eventually weeded out, then it seems faster ones were needed, because slower ones didn't survive them.

I know that the vast accumulation of ToE information might work hypothetically, but then it has to. I still think my logic makes sense.

If it helps, I did learn all of that stuff when the evolutionists taught me it a year or two ago, and I took it in and haven't forgotten. But then what does my argument matter anyway? You have to accept the fact that I believe my argument over the evolution version. That I think it more plausible that original kinds and original gene pools provided all the information necessary, and that since then NS has worked with that information, but evolution is not proven IMO. Since hundreds of years of science are unlikely to be wrong and me right, it should comfort you to know that my argument won't mean much to anyone, but me.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-15-2005 07:41 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Sylas, posted 06-15-2005 5:06 PM Sylas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Sylas, posted 06-15-2005 8:23 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Admin, posted 06-16-2005 9:43 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3676 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 49 of 60 (217266)
06-15-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 7:36 PM


Re: Sylas, is mikey here to learn or refute?
I know that the vast accumulation of ToE information might work hypothetically, but then it has to. I still think my logic makes sense.

It doesn't. Your argument has been a trivial false dichotomy from the start. You have insisted that there is a necessity for selection to be all or nothing, and that if any individual survives with a particular feature, this means there can't be selection against it.

You've done this repeatedly in the thread; but it is wrong. Most creationists recognize it is wrong. Most creationists recognize "microevolution", including the effects of selection to bring about changes in form over time. It is not hypothetical at all, but confirmed in countless studies. Selection really does apply for features that an organism does not need to survive.

What selection requires is simply differential reproductive success. Organisms can live and reproduce and flourish without the selected characteristic; but those that flourish a bit better will, over time, displace the less well adapted form. If the selective pressures remain fixed indefinitely, then the less well adapted form is eventually removed altogether from the gene pool. Not because they could not survive, but because over time their proportion of the population dropped until it hit zero.

Your argument is If slower ones are eventually weeded out, then it seems faster ones were needed, because slower ones didn't survive them. You've not defended that syllogism. It's false.

The slower ones do survive and reproduce. They just do it a bit less effectively than the faster ones, and so as faster ones arise they tend to replace slower ones. If, as an experiment, you artifically killed off the faster ones, the slower ones would continue to live. In fact, you'd become part of a different environment and change the selective pressures.

How the plague do you think animal husbandry and breeding programs work? The farmer sets up an envionment with positive selection for the traits she prefers.

At this point Mike, you are being obtuse and confirming all the remarks I made in the other thread that you apparently found so baseless.

This is pointless; and it's not because you are irrefutable. It is because you are irrational. You purport to be defending a biblical world view, but in the end you only end up turning your back on the very creation you believe God made.

Goodbye -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 7:36 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
bugeater
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 60 (217285)
06-15-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by gnojek
06-14-2005 5:35 PM


A mold produces an antibiotic compound to battle off bacteria that may eat it or its food source.

But a species of bacteria developed a weapon against that.

It's like a bio-arms race.

It certainly is interesting. :) The trouble we are having with antibiotic resistant bacteria is likely due to this constant battling taking place in the microscopic world. Most (all?) antibiotics come from microorganisms. So for any one antibiotic, there is already the counter to it in existance in other microorganisms. The human pathogen we are treating with the antibiotic just needs to get the required counter and they are resistant. And bacteria can be quite promiscuous when it comes to DNA. :rolleyes:

Even restiction enzymes which are of vital importance in recombinant DNA technology (they are the "scissors") arose as a defence in bacteria against bacteriophage (virus) infection.

Thinking about this makes me wonder if it is a case against "intelligent design". Why would a creator give a microorganism a weapon and then render that weapon useless by giving its foe the counter weapon? :confused: In a way these weapon/counter-weapon pairs could just be considered the leftovers of an arms race. But if they were created and didn't evolve, then no such arms race would ever have taken place.

Marty


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by gnojek, posted 06-14-2005 5:35 PM gnojek has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 51 of 60 (217351)
06-16-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 7:36 PM


Re: Sylas, is mikey here to learn or refute?
Hi Mike,

I'm only going to say this once. I'm not going to explain or discuss my position, or respond to inquiries. As I've indicated before concerning others, this never helps.

This thread is in one of the science forums. The science forums at EvC Forum are intended to explore Creationism's claim to be legitimate science. Only scientific evidence and arguments are permitted here. Those who concede that they're "a biblist who doesn't accept elemental philosophies" probably shouldn't be contributing in the science forums. Those who are unable to grasp simple points and therefore engage in productive discussion should not be contributing to the science forums, either. Keep in mind that this moderator feels no need to persuade a contributor that he's not contributing productively before limiting participation.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 7:36 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4668
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 52 of 60 (217605)
06-17-2005 10:53 AM


Sylas,

I said;

if you needed a trait you didn't have then you wouldn't survive

This is my argument. A favourable trait, if possible, would not prove evolution happened, it would prove that traits don't necessarily help us to survive. It would just be to deny the consequent of my argument, that's all. "if you survive you didn't need the trait". So are you saying NS never deals with needs?

I also agree with creationists, that NS works on availabe information, and you think it works on mutations = evolution.

Telling me how NS works doesn't remove the fact that if you needed a trait you didn't have then you wouldn't survive.

I assume you believe that we cam about naturalistically, right from the beginning. Therefore you still have the same problem as before, if I needed a heart or an organ or any rudimentary system immediately, then I would not survive.

This means that the dilemma is real, that if you claim NS made every creature and all biological systems, then if a organism is in need of anything it would not survive.

Selection really does apply for features that an organism does not need to survive

It wouldn't prove much anyway, because species from the beginning NEED in order to survive. All species have interacting functioning sytems, even cells. A species needs what it needs to survive straight away, it cannot wait for mutations. if you needed a trait you didn't have then you wouldn't survive

I will concede that NS will happen with things not needed, because of your knowledge on the matter. However, things are most definitely needed in order to survive.

Percy writes:

Those who concede that they're "a biblist who doesn't accept elemental philosophies" probably shouldn't be contributing in the science forums. Those who are unable to grasp simple points and therefore engage in productive discussion should not be contributing to the science forums, either

Percy, I grasp simple points and have argued hypothetically about NS. Should by disbelief in naturalistic endeavours mean I can not take part even if I argue USING logic which is a valid part of science?

Also, if you are suggesting I can't grasp simple points, then show what you mean or your claim will mean NOTHING.

If I do not respond to simple points or immediately believe them, then that's because they don't negate nor have any special baring on my argument.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-17-2005 10:55 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Wounded King, posted 06-17-2005 11:34 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 56 by Admin, posted 06-17-2005 1:13 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2511 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 53 of 60 (217618)
06-17-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by mike the wiz
06-17-2005 10:53 AM


You just seem to be endlessly repeating a tautology.

Obviously if an organism lacks something which it needs to survive then it will not survive. You haven't shown any way in which this has any relevance to evolution. What you would have to show is that all of the organism's ancestors would also have needed that same thing in order to survive.

So, in fact, it is just the same old irreducible complexity argument yet again since to make sense you need be able to show that the integrated systems could not co-evolve from rudimentrary precursors.

It wouldn't prove much anyway, because species from the beginning NEED in order to survive.

What do they need? If you have found out what the minimal requirements are for something that could be called living then you should really let us all know. Can you show that the neccessary components for a primitive self replicating system could not arise from inorganic material?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 10:53 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 11:44 AM Wounded King has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4668
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 54 of 60 (217623)
06-17-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Wounded King
06-17-2005 11:34 AM


WK

you need be able to show that the integrated systems could not

Can you show that the neccessary components for a primitive self replicating system could not arise from inorganic material?

Notice anything? The true positive is to prove it, not disprove it.

It is to those who claim these things DO happen, those people must show these things COULD. And even if they hypothetically could, my position is also hypothetical.

I know I have repeated my valid argument again and again. It's to show that as far as I'm aware, this would be a genuine problem.

Now surely NS would select that which is needed to exist. Even a rudimentary system would be irreducabley complex IMO.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-17-2005 11:46 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Wounded King, posted 06-17-2005 11:34 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 06-17-2005 12:22 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2005 1:24 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 58 by mark24, posted 06-17-2005 1:45 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Sylas, posted 06-17-2005 7:44 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2511 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 55 of 60 (217643)
06-17-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
06-17-2005 11:44 AM


So in fact your argument is completely empty, in that it is not only hypothetical but that it can never be anything other than hypothetical. There are numerous examples of pathways for the evolution of irreducible complexity (depending of course on which flavour of IC is doing the rounds this month). Where is even a hypothetical barrier to their evolution?

IMO

well, yes. That seems to pretty much sum up your argument. In your opinion it couldn't happen, and that should be good enough for everybody.

Notice anything? The true positive is to prove it, not disprove it.

How lovely and disingenuous, what about all the evidence which does suggest such systems are evolveable, such as the many extant examples of systems which represent rudimentary forms of more complex systems in other organisms? Or the experiments where amino acids have arisen from a simulated prebiotic atmosphere organic or self replicating nucleotides have been generated? You are the one making a claim, if it is a claim which has no evidence to support it then we know how much credence we should give it.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 11:44 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 56 of 60 (217660)
06-17-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by mike the wiz
06-17-2005 10:53 AM


Mike the Wiz Suspended for 24 Hours
mike the wiz writes:

Percy, I grasp simple points and have argued hypothetically about NS. Should by disbelief in naturalistic endeavours mean I can not take part even if I argue USING logic which is a valid part of science?

Also, if you are suggesting I can't grasp simple points, then show what you mean or your claim will mean NOTHING.

If I do not respond to simple points or immediately believe them, then that's because they don't negate nor have any special baring on my argument.

Members are required by the Forum Guidelines to follow moderator requests and contribute productively to discussion. In my judgement you are repeating the same simple errors over and over again. The Forum Guidelines request that you keep discussion moving forward, and the moderators have pointed out that, whether you believe it or not, there's a lot that you don't seem to understand.

Understanding something is not the same thing as accepting it. No one is saying you must accept that the array of life we see today is the result of natural selection and descent with modification. But if you're going to discuss it and dispute it, then it is reasonable to expect you to understand it. I don't believe in the resurrection, yet I have no problem understanding the Christian claim that Jesus rose on the 3rd day. I don't believe Noah's flood ever happened, yet I can recite the tale of Noah in great detail. I don't think there was ever a Garden of Eden, yet I understand how the fall is the origin of sin in mankind, and that Jesus died so that we may be forgiven our sins.

By the same token, you don't have to believe that natural selection plays a role in the origin of species, but it is not asking too much to expect you to understand how natural selection is thought to work, especially since you feel moved to discuss it. Despite all the attempts to explain natural selection to you, you still don't understand it. My suggestion is that before you post to this thread again that you make darn sure you understand it.

I must be going soft, I seem to be violating my own dictim to not explain suspensions. Anyway, if you would like to remain here on a consistent basis then you will have to find a way to figure out what people are telling you, which can also be found in a multitude of books at any library. This isn't rocket science, just simple biology. You will not be permitted to turn threads away from their topics and into extended and so far failed attempts to teach you what biology actually says about evolution.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 10:53 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8894
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 57 of 60 (217666)
06-17-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
06-17-2005 11:44 AM


An attempt to explain to Mike
As futile as this almost certainly is I'm going to see if I can figure out where Mike's thinking is going so far wrong.

There is not use discussing IC or anything so apparently sophisticated. Mike's problems are at a much, much lower level.

Mike, you talk about an animal 'needing' some trait to survive. You say if it doesn't have it then it is a gone goose so how can anything evolve? I think that might be a paraphrase of your position.

The point is: so what? If an individual animal doesn't have what it needs to survive and breed then it dies. Big deal.

Animals, as has been stated on this forum dozens of times, do NOT evolve. Populations do. The individual that died may well have died because it could not get food from the big bully down the block. The big bully survived. Why was it the big bully? Because, perhaps, it had a gene the inclinded it to be bigger and meaner.

You might say: But what if it is cold and the species doesn't have a nice long wooly coat. Then all the individual animals will die. Yes! Right on! And species go extinct all the time. Who will take advantage of whatever food supply is available in that cold climate? Another species, perhaps a very close relative perhaps no relation. One that is just enough cold adapted to handle the climate. Perhaps only at the warmer fringes of the climate. If any members of that species are born with a warmer coat they will be able to move a bit farther into the colder parts of the enviroment (farther north (sorry about the chauvinism to Sylas), farther up the mountain). They "need" the coat to survive in the cold. If they don't have it they move to where it is warm enough or they die. If they happen to have it they take advantage of an untouched food supply.

That has been made clear a lot of times here Mike. If you don't get it then it is clear that the science side is just not an environment that you have the necessary traits to survive ine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 11:44 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3612 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 58 of 60 (217669)
06-17-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
06-17-2005 11:44 AM


Mike,

Even a rudimentary system would be irreducabley complex IMO.

So? Are you claiming IC cannot evolve?

If you are making a claim then it is your job to support it. It doesn't matter whether your claim is positive or negative, you are the claimant, the burden of proof falls on you. In this case you would have put yourself in the position of having to prove a negative.

You would be shifting the burden of proof, a logical no-no.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 06-17-2005 01:48 PM


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 11:44 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3676 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 59 of 60 (217760)
06-17-2005 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
06-17-2005 11:44 AM


Now surely NS would select that which is needed to exist. Even a rudimentary system would be irreducabley complex IMO.

Ah! So that is what this is about. This is worth emphasizing, so I'm back for another comment...

No, natural selection does not select what is needed to exist.

You cannot get new changes arising that are "needed to exist", since the ancestor had to exist already. And changes that remove what are needed to exist are fatal. That could be thought of as a kind of selection; but only in a crude and uninteresting way.

Selection and evolution actually work on variants, both of which are able to exist but which may out compete each other in different circumstances. The key phease is differential reproductive success.

The examples Mike has raised include such things as running speed, and length of roots, and so on. These are not "needed to exist" in the absolute sense intended here.

This is the basis of the false dichotomy. Mike has been suggesting that selection of a feature can only mean it is "needed to exist", and that continuing existence of some earlier feature means that the new feature is not needed to exist. Therefore no evolution. See, for example, Message 22.

The notion of "needed to exist" is also fraught with problems; since what is needed to exist changes over time as environment and as the form of an organism changes. Organs that are needed in one organism cannot merely be assumed essential in all its ancestors.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 11:44 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 60 of 60 (218131)
06-19-2005 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wounded King
06-14-2005 4:43 AM


Re: Rate of Mutatability
Where it gets to be a problem as I see it is when people then say that due to this assumed {relatively constant \ small sample averaged} rate of mutation that species {A} and {B} shared a common ancestor n.nnnnnn mya.

We also have the evidence now that humans evolved at a fast pace (more mutations fixed in the genome in the same time period) than chimps and gorillas, and I have to wonder how this fits into the genetic common ancestor clock calculations.

Just my thoughts. Sorry for the delay, I've been away.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wounded King, posted 06-14-2005 4:43 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020