Symbiotic relationships

W4e, maybe your problems with evolution come from a simple misunderstanding: Mutations are *common*. We all have some in us - even though we do not notice most of them. These mutations do not happen for a distinct purpose (although that is debatable - I think species with too few mutations per genome were so immutable that they have been selected against), yet they are the fuel evolution runs on. They represent the *possibility* of change, natural selection brings with it the *necessity* to do so.

These mutations do not - of course - always mean the difference between life and death, infertility and procreation. You're painting a black and white picture that is inaccurate: All evolution requires is a slight statistical advantage of one mutation over others. Better vision, better procurement of food, better spreading of genetic material - these are just examples of slight advantages that can help a mutation spread through the population.

Birds do *not* sprout feathers because something, somewhere wants to help them - this is the kind of crazy image creationists like to pin on evolution. But if a certain mutation in a bird of prey's tail feathers allows it to fly more accurately, target its prey with a better chance of scoring a hit, then natural selection favors this mutation against others. He will have more food at his disposal, thus easier access to mates and better chances his children will survive than others.

Of course, such drastic changes are not the norm - in fact, evolution is a slow, gradual, non-directional process. Chance plays a role, but - as they say - on average, statistics win.

Evolution explains why our body is such a patchwork of mechanisms, all in a precarious balance that's all too easily derailed: We are the current result of a process of trial and error. Our senses are imperfect, our eyes have severe flaws in their design, our sense of smell has atrophied so much it is barely existant in comparison with other species, we can neither run, nor swim very quickly, but we have found our biological niche as tool-making universalists and omnivores.

Just on a side note and slightly off-topic: Our bodies are still adapted to a stone-age environment, are not made for an abundance of food, sugar and sitting in a chair 8 hours a day (which lead to all kinds of "civilisation diseases").

Since you have offered examples of what kind of things simply couldn't have been arrived at through natural selection, by all means, give us some and we'll do a little research.

Adressing your "nest" example: This IS an evolutionary strategy, because in many avian species, female partners choose their males according to the grandiosity of the nests they can build. Consider humans....
This is not necessary for all avian species - for some, a particularly bright red bosom is all that's needed to appear attractive. These mechanisms serve to protect the birds from mating with genetically defective partners. Of course, this kind of selection sometimes leads to exorbitant feathers like those of male peacocks, but if the species gets too encumbered by these to escape predators, the problem solves itself... *g*

The spots on eggs often *do* influence survivability, especially for ground-breeding birds, as they serve as camouflage. White eggs are easily spotted by predators, and thus are selected against.

Cats washing their faces would have started as the normal grooming process *every* fur or feather costume-wearer must exhibit to keep the fur clean of parasites and dirt. Since cats have developed long, sensitive hairs (another obvious example for evolution at work), these need to be in pristine shape to function correctly. A cat that neglects this duty has a harder time catching mice or noticing larger predators...

Enjoyance for music probably comes with how our brains function. Maybe it is a side-effect of our general sense of aesthetics, which influences our search for partners as well.

most of what I would say has been said, but on the subject of animals doing elaborate things;

It takes alot of energy to build a complex nest, or have a bright bosom or whatever, and so a bird that has these features may, if the mindset of it's mate is correct, attract a mate to it. this is interesting in the case of robins and other such coloured birds (blackbirds with their beaks) because the colour also shows how healthy the immune system is; if the robin has a very red breast, ot the blackbird has an orangey beak, then it has a good immune system and it's offspring is likely to survive.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Is it the same with humans? Do more attractive humans have better immune systems?

__________________
"Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"

quite often, yes. though with humans we also have an issue of the fact that we are much more of a mentally based species and have a media and stuff which shapes our opinions. the reasons for human attractiveness may be fuzzier because of our mental abilities, but many of the same rules apply. Women tend to want a man who is stronger than her, and perhaps a bit dominating in a way, and men mostly like their women slightly passive and feminine. when it comes to money and power, you see similar trends.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

And with humans, as with birds, those males with the cooler costume and the bigger house get all the chicks...

I have found that to be true, that women have a "nesting instinct". They often will choose a mate that they know will provide a roof over their head and food on the table. Why do you think so many third world nation women want to marry an american? Because they know in American there will be food on the table and a roof over their head. So that gives them some security in raising a child.

No, but we listen to you and see how crazy you are

The problem is you can't seem to conceptualize the concept of natural selection. Organisms that have traits that benefit their survival and reproduction in a particular environment will be selected for. Organisms that have traits that hinder their survival and reproduction in a particular environment will be selected against.

For example, suppose you have a population of rabbits living in a cold, wintry climate. Certain traits (thick fur to protect against cold, white fur to assist in camouflage, better sense of smell for finding food) will help rabbits survive in such an environment. Rabbits without those traits will have a harder time surviving, and will slowly disappear from the population. Eventually, the population will gravitate towards rabbits possessing those beneficial traits.

Umm... sure. It could also be simply ecause living in the third world plainly sucks in comparison to basking in burger heaven.

Oh, hand over one more of those humility pills to John, the dried frog pills are no longer working. SCNR! Just kidding ya!

Siliconaut, i noticed some weird things in your post. You said "But if a certain mutation in a bird of prey's tail feathers allows it to fly more accurately, target its prey with a better chance of scoring a hit, then "natural selection favors this mutation against others."" My question being, how can "natural selection" favor a mutation? Remember, you say, its nothing, its just nature. How can this natural selection favor a random mutation, that mutation in feathers wouldnt occured no matter what the conditions of the bird would be, its a mutation. http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf108/sf108p05.htm. How can this random mutation (a very light change in code) favor an animal regardless of the birds enivornment. How would agree that if a bird is cold and needs more feathers for warmth the bird isnt going to create a mutation based on the problem its having, its random. But then to say this random mutation then is favored by natural selection? how?
Then you say "Of course, such drastic changes are not the norm - in fact, evolution is a slow, gradual, non-directional process. Chance plays a role, but - as they say - on average, statistics win" Now, reguardless this sounds like creation to me, but you claim its a slow, gradual process yet there are many species and animals that evolve together or seprately at exteremely high rates while others evolve much slower. We still have simple life but at the same time we still have humans in a mere 4.5 billion years. A species will evolve much quicker than others. Humans are so advanced, intelligance, language, ect, its hard to imagine we still have simple life not evolving. Why did humans spring up so quickly, you gotta admit, according to evolution, humans have flown past evolution in an intelligance and complexity stand point. Then you say "our eyes have severe flaws in their design" Geez, study the eye please. I see a miracle of complexity on viewing things at 100,000 times magnification. The retina is probably the most complicated tissue in the whole body. Millions of nerve cells interconnect in a fantastic number of ways to form a miniature ‘brain’. Much of what the photoreceptors ‘see’ is interpreted and processed by the retina long before it enters the brain. Some eyes are capable of sensing a single photon, the smallest impulse of light. Darwin stated, “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Alot of people will say that the nerve endings are backwards, well, thank God for the human brain, it poses no thread to the species of Man. http://www.icr.org/faqs/sgp148.html. And if anyone needs anymore links on how awesome the eye is, please, let me know. Then you claim that man cant run fast, ect. Well, i totally agree, we, as humans, have almost ZERO competive aspect to us yet we lived so many thousands or millions of years. The only thing humans have is intelligance, wow, sounds like intelligent design. Then you say that colored eggs protect them, i agree, a white egg is going to get eaten alot faster than one thats covered, but how did this egg get like this, anyone know, DNA? mutation? natural selection? or creation? Ummm.
And i dont know if alot of you are english majors im going to clue you into something. Anytime you guys talk about "natural selection" you give it a verb. A verb is an action of a noun, ie "natural selection favors this mutation against others" Favors is the action of natural mutation, this is the noun, you are placing natural selection as a noun using it in conjuction with a verb or giving it an action. By using this person, place, or thing (noun) you are placing a "person-like" attrubute to it.

a random mutation occurs in a bird, it affects the way the bird can fly. it is just completely random ok? if this mutation is a good one, then the bird can fly better, and is more likely to get food, survive, be strong and breed. if the mutation is bad, then the bird does not eat so well, and does not breed as much. see? simple.

it isn't an issue of some evolving faster and some evolving slower, because evolution is directionless. all it is, is that better adapted individuals produce more offspring than less well adapted individuals.

we have, there are severe flaws in the design of the eye

simple: natural selection. a coloured egg doesn't get seen and eaten, wheras a white one gets eaten. guess which one has the offspring.

no we are not personifying it. "the wind blows the leaves away" is not personifying the wind. "the computer program deletes the virus" is not personifying the program. "the process does something" is not personifying a process. "natural selection" is a "process"

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.