Forums | MacLife

Chickenhawk wrote:

And I say again, its not *just* a random mutation if the trait is beneficial enough to the organism that it comes to dominate within an asexual population. It obviously gave the mutated bacteria enough of a survival advantage that the descendants of the original mutated bacterium dominated the rest of the population.

Yeah - natural selection. Nifty, ain't it?

Some random mutations are negative. Some are neutral. Some are positive. Some depend upon the conditions as to whether they are neg, neutral, or positive.

Sickle cell anemia can be a positive mutation in areas of high malaria outbreaks, even though it is detrimental where malaria is not a factor.

Do you consider sickle cell anemia to be evolution?
Because if you do, then might want to use a different term for fish to frogs.

Last edited by resedit (2008-07-01 12:00 pm)

Additionally humans resist natural forces to a degree never seen in any animal before us or since us. Most animals can't normally simply go from an area where malaria is an issue to an area generation much less go back and forth between them several times within a generation. Other animals may test new areas to see if they can survive or even thrive there but if they cannot they aren't as persistent and innovative about finding ways of doing it anyway.

Humans are also more willing to try to breed out an undesired trait. Most other animal tend to avoid animals with undesired trait and not breed with them.

That also doesn't begin to cover how open we are as a species. While there are those  with traits some consider undesirable many of us like to keep our options open and are willing to overlook those traits in favor of others and some who prefer those traits (as the glasses fetish shows).

The put it another way we tend to monkey with the works.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-07-01 12:56 pm)

God I love this place.

Last edited by Colonel Panic (2008-07-01 3:17 pm)

No - it is natural selection in action, not evolution in action.

Natural selection and evolution are two different things. The latter requires the former, but the former is not the latter.

resedit wrote:

No - it is natural selection in action, not evolution in action.

Natural selection and evolution are two different things. The latter requires the former, but the former is not the latter.

Actually, NS is just one mechanism by which evolution happens.

Here's a fine article entitled "Evolution myths: Natural selection is the only means of evolution."  It seems tailor-made for this particular post.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif … ution.html

And while you're at it, there is also interesting reading here with "Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions"

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif … tions.html

In fact, that whole site is so useful that I might just post URLs from now on in threads like this.  It's probably got nearly everything covered.

I was talking to a burning bush a while back and he said...

Oh, sorry. That was an effigy of the Pres.

Basically - natural selection happens whether or not there is evolution.
Gene mutations happen (all the freakin' time) whether or not there is evolution.

Evolution has not occurred until natural selection has worked with the gene mutations such that the population would have to deal with an old problem in a new way.

And for the record - I don't deny that evolution happens.
I do deny that single celled organisms are the genetic ancestors of redwood trees.

Last edited by resedit (2008-07-06 11:27 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

Do you deny single celled organisms are the genetic ancestors of kelp or mushrooms?

Yes.
I don't know about kelp, but mushroom cells are significantly different from the cells of most (all?) plants - hence their classification as a fungus - but I do not believe they have a single cell organism ancestor.

Kelp - I'm guessing they have similar cellular structure to other plants, including redwood trees, with normal plant cell walls. I don't know if they are diploid like most plants but I would guess so if I was taking an exam I hadn't studied for. Mushrooms I don't think are diploid.

OK.
I don't know much about kelp, other than that it can be used to make ice cream.

jerwin wrote:

resedit wrote:

OK.
I don't know much about kelp, other than that it can be used to make ice cream.

"Design" in action.

Ice cream is the important thing in the ID/Evolution debate. Get your priorities straight.

Last edited by resedit (2008-07-07 7:04 am)

With respect to entropy - in the classic sense it is a thermodynamics concept, but it applies to information (DNA) as well - shannon entropy. The equations hold regardless, and it would not surprise me at all to find out that on a quantum level, thermodynamic entropy IS information entropy - the information being related to the random kinetic energy (temperature) of the molecules.

The issue with macroevolution vs microevolution - evolutionists don't want the two to be separate because they want to point to micro and say "see - evolution is proven". However - pointing at a flood in the midwest during a wet year does not prove the world was covered by a flood, now does it? Scientists often argue that despite regional floods, a worldwide flood is impossible. Similarly, ID says that despite micro evolution, macro evolution is impossible.

I think we've discussed entropy before. Shannon entropy is useful in bioinformatics because, among other things, it helps researchers calculate the significance of a "hit" in a genetic database.

And thermodynamic entropy is useful to a biochemist, because it can be used to calculate the direction of a chemical reaction. So, let it not be said that "entropies" are unimportant, it's just that the "messy/organized" layman's definition---which is quite flawed-- becomes marginalized.

Macroevolution is commonly used to describe the appearance and disappearance of large scale taxonomic groups in the fossil records-- why are beetles so common? Why did trilobites disappear? Why are Sphenodontians limited to only a few species? I believe that this may also be called "Group selection". It's largely ignored by Dawkins, but Gould wrote extesively on the subject.

As for "sorting"
If organism A produces 8 offspring, and organism B produces 2 offspring, the differential reproductive success of A and B is an example of sorting. It could be genes. It could be  environment. It could be blind luck.

But, as soon as you claim that organism A is producing more offspring because it is better adapted to the environment than B-- then poof! It's no longer just sorting. It's selection. The distinction is apparently important for thinking about group selection.