How do opossums fit into evolution?

SkyWriting · #**111** 31st July 2012, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Jamin4422

In Hong Kong they want their food still moving when they put it in the pan to cook it. When it quits moving, then it is ready to eat. They say if it has been dead for more then 20 min it is to late. They live longer in Hong Kong then any other country in the world.

But if your looking for a direct correlation in diet, you'd examine the top 6 to see if they all follow your pattern.

1 Japan 82.6 79.0 86.1
2 Hong Kong 82.2 79.4 85.1
3 Switzerland 82.1 80.0 84.2
4 Israel 82.0 80.0 84.0
5 Iceland 81.8 80.2 83.3
6 Australia 81.2 78.9 83.6

SkyWriting · #**112** 31st July 2012, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by CabVet

Well, my dog likes tomatoes. That must therefore be proof against evolution because according to the ToE dogs are carnivores. I just wish creationists understood evolution so we could have a meaningful debate about it.

"Darwin and traditional evolutionary mechanics theory assumed that the evolution process is the same for all species. All species presumably were subject to mutational change and also to natural selection. However, genetics discoveries disclosed gross differences in inheritance mechanisms that clearly affect propagation of mutational changes. Simple organisms (e.g. bacteria) only possess one (haploid) set of genetic data while most complex organisms possess two (diploid) sets of genetic data. In the latter case, phenotypic design is determined by the combined effect of both sets of genetic data.

Further, early genetics discoveries revealed that in many cases one state (allele) of a mutational difference dominated the design such that the opposite allele would have essentially no phenotypic effect unless both sets of genetic data contained the same recessive allele. Propagation of mutational changes is therefore very different in diploid organisms because an adverse mutational change that was recessive could propagate more readily than in the haploid case while a beneficial but recessive mutational change would propagate less well than in the haploid case. Further analysis disclosed many other differences that plausibly affect propagation (e.g. X or Y linking, mitochondrial DNA, etc.) Obvious questions result:

If the evolution process is different in different organisms potentially enormous complexity results. Data acquired from study of bacteria is not necessarily applicable to complex organisms, etc. Perhaps mammals evolve in a different manner than plants? Are there many factors that influence the evolution process? Which species possess them? To what extent?
From a traditional mechanics standpoint, the diploid inheritance mechanism appears to be a step backward. Propagation of beneficial changes is inhibited while propagation of adverse changes is encouraged. Why would a backward step evolve and be retained?
Everybody agrees that diploid genomes and sexual reproduction are evolved designs. Is it possible that therefore organisms can evolve differences in their evolutionary processes? Can they evolve improvements in their evolutionary processes?

These questions lead to development of the evolvability alternative evolutionary mechanics theories. The potentially enormous increase in complexity exposed by rapidly advancing genetics science affects our scientific confidence regarding evolutionary mechanics. "
Perhaps nobody really understands the details of evolutionary mechanics!

CabVet · #**113** 31st July 2012, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

Darwin and traditional evolutionary mechanics theory assumed that the evolution process is the same for all species. All species presumably were subject to mutational change and also to natural selection. However, genetics discoveries disclosed gross differences in inheritance mechanisms that clearly affect propagation of mutational changes. Simple organisms (e.g. bacteria) only possess one (haploid) set of genetic data while most complex organisms possess two (diploid) sets of genetic data. In the latter case, phenotypic design is determined by the combined effect of both sets of genetic data.

Further, early genetics discoveries revealed that in many cases one state (allele) of a mutational difference dominated the design such that the opposite allele would have essentially no phenotypic effect unless both sets of genetic data contained the same recessive allele. Propagation of mutational changes is therefore very different in diploid organisms because an adverse mutational change that was recessive could propagate more readily than in the haploid case while a beneficial but recessive mutational change would propagate less well than in the haploid case. Further analysis disclosed many other differences that plausibly affect propagation (e.g. X or Y linking, mitochondrial DNA, etc.) Obvious questions result:

ToE today is very different from ToE that Darwin proposed. He didn't even know what DNA was or how inheritance was transmitted. Theories get refined. Gravity today is not the gravity that Newton proposed.

But the refinement of the theory does not change the fact the evolution is descent with modification.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

If the evolution process is different in different organisms potentially enormous complexity results. Data acquired from study of bacteria is not necessarily applicable to complex organisms, etc. Perhaps mammals evolve in a different manner than plants? Are there many factors that influence the evolution process? Which species possess them? To what extent?
From a traditional mechanics standpoint, the diploid inheritance mechanism appears to be a step backward. Propagation of beneficial changes is inhibited while propagation of adverse changes is encouraged. Why would a backward step evolve and be retained?
Everybody agrees that diploid genomes and sexual reproduction are evolved designs. Is it possible that therefore organisms can evolve differences in their evolutionary processes? Can they evolve improvements in their evolutionary processes?

These questions lead to development of the evolvability alternative evolutionary mechanics theories. The potentially enormous increase in complexity exposed by rapidly advancing genetics science affects our scientific confidence regarding evolutionary mechanics.
Perhaps nobody really understands the details of evolutionary mechanics!

That is where your straw man begins. Yes, organisms evolve differently. Yes, mutations happen at different rates in organisms with different generation times. Yes, there is still a lot we can learn about evolution, search pubmed for papers on "evolution" and you will find thousands in 2012 alone. But all available evidence, from all organisms, points to the fact that, even though every one do it their own way and speed, every organism that produces descendents changes and evolves.

There is no such thing as an "evolved" design. Nobody agrees with that. That is another one of your straw man and an erroneous interpretation of evolution. To me the most "evolved" organisms in this planet are bacteria that survived and thrived for billions of years and will probably survive for long after humans go extinct.

sfs · #**114** 31st July 2012, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

Darwin and traditional evolutionary mechanics theory assumed that the evolution process is the same for all species. All species presumably were subject to mutational change and also to natural selection. However, genetics discoveries disclosed gross differences in inheritance mechanisms that clearly affect propagation of mutational changes. Simple organisms (e.g. bacteria) only possess one (haploid) set of genetic data while most complex organisms possess two (diploid) sets of genetic data. In the latter case, phenotypic design is determined by the combined effect of both sets of genetic data.

Well, yes, but almost all of classical genetics was developed with diploid organisms. Bacteria are different genetically, but they're also simpler, so it's not exactly hard to adjust to their existence.

Further, early genetics discoveries revealed that in many cases one state (allele) of a mutational difference dominated the design such that the opposite allele would have essentially no phenotypic effect unless both sets of genetic data contained the same recessive allele. Propagation of mutational changes is therefore very different in diploid organisms because an adverse mutational change that was recessive could propagate more readily than in the haploid case while a beneficial but recessive mutational change would propagate less well than in the haploid case. Further analysis disclosed many other differences that plausibly affect propagation (e.g. X or Y linking, mitochondrial DNA, etc.)

Yes, much of this goes all the way back to Mendel.

Obvious questions result:

If the evolution process is different in different organisms potentially enormous complexity results.

Yeah, biology is complicated and messy. That's why there's much of it.

Data acquired from study of bacteria is not necessarily applicable to complex organisms, etc.

Yes, we know. In reality, the larger problem in biology is that scientists working with different organisms pay too little attention to work done on other organisms, not too much. Reinvention of wheels is not uncommon.

Perhaps mammals evolve in a different manner than plants?

To some extent they do: plants hybridize much more readily, and are much more likely to form polyploid new species. They are also more likely to be hermaphroditic. Probably other differences too. All subject to exhaustive study for decades now.

Are there many factors that influence the evolution process?

Yes. Population size, variance in number of offspring, reproductive strategy, haploidy/diploidy, genome duplications, mutation rates, hybridization, population structure, geographic distribution, spatial and temporal variability of environment, endosymbiosis and lots of other things. What do you think biologists have been busy studying for the past century?

Which species possess them? To what extent?

You want a list?

From a traditional mechanics standpoint, the diploid inheritance mechanism appears to be a step backward. Propagation of beneficial changes is inhibited while propagation of adverse changes is encouraged. Why would a backward step evolve and be retained?

Dominant and partially dominant alleles are directly exposed to selection, regardless of whether they are beneficial or deleterious. Recessives are less affected by selection, and so some mutations escape selection that wouldn't have in haploids. The larger effect is that sexual reproduction (for those that have it) imposes a two-fold reproductive cost. There is also a large gain, however, since sexual reproduction allows different alleles to be combined in new ways every generation. That makes selection tremendously more effective, which especially important in a rapidly changing environment.

Everybody agrees that diploid genomes and sexual reproduction are evolved designs. Is it possible that therefore organisms can evolve differences in their evolutionary processes? Can they evolve improvements in their evolutionary processes?

Yes, and yes. They have evolved differences, and some of them are improvements, at least for some purposes.

These are all reasonable questions, but they are also all questions that have been investigated by biologists for many years.

Jamin4422 · #**115** 31st July 2012, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

But if your looking for a direct correlation in diet, you'd examine the top 6 to see if they all follow your pattern.

1 Japan 82.6 79.0 86.1
2 Hong Kong 82.2 79.4 85.1
3 Switzerland 82.1 80.0 84.2
4 Israel 82.0 80.0 84.0
5 Iceland 81.8 80.2 83.3
6 Australia 81.2 78.9 83.6

Yes they do follow the pattern. Although I do like the idea that Swiss Chocolate and Swiss cheese leads to a long life. That is my kind of diet. I must prefer that to fish. Switzerland gets a bit of an advantage in that they do not lose as many people in wars. Israel are richer so they tend to have a better diet. In fact when people live in the same city, the rich tend to live 10 years longer then the poor. Most likely because they can afford better food and a better diet.

Just go to your local grocery store and you will see that cheap food is usually not even real food. Artificial ingredients cost less then the real food that provides you will real nutrition. Rich people tend to buy real food and are a lot more healthy as a result.

SkyWriting · #**116** 8th August 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Jamin4422

Yes they do follow the pattern. Although I do like the idea that Swiss Chocolate and Swiss cheese leads to a long life. That is my kind of diet. I must prefer that to fish. Switzerland gets a bit of an advantage in that they do not lose as many people in wars. Israel are richer so they tend to have a better diet. In fact when people live in the same city, the rich tend to live 10 years longer then the poor. Most likely because they can afford better food and a better diet.

Just go to your local grocery store and you will see that cheap food is usually not even real food. Artificial ingredients cost less then the real food that provides you will real nutrition. Rich people tend to buy real food and are a lot more healthy as a result.

Lost more abstract thoughts and interesting theories there.

SkyWriting · #**117** 8th August 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by CabVet

There is no such thing as an "evolved" design. Nobody agrees with that. That is another one of your straw man and an erroneous interpretation of evolution. To me the most "evolved" organisms in this planet are bacteria that survived and thrived for billions of years and will probably survive for long after humans go extinct.

"Evolved design?" I've never heard of it. But I can check for you.....

"It is also evident that the evolved design of many components of complex animals is incompatible with indefinite survival. We can therefore conclude that this evolved design is intrinsically related to the fact of aging. "

So I guess somebody is a believer. Always a kooky one in the bunch.

CabVet · #**118** 8th August 2012, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

"Evolved design?" I've never heard of it. But I can check for you.....

"It is also evident that the evolved design of many components of complex animals is incompatible with indefinite survival. We can therefore conclude that this evolved design is intrinsically related to the fact of aging. "

So I guess somebody is a believer. Always a kooky one in the bunch.

Oh, so now you've never heard of the stuff you posted about just a few days ago? Also, somebody is not the same as everybody.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

Everybody agrees that diploid genomes and sexual reproduction are evolved designs. Is it possible that therefore organisms can evolve differences in their evolutionary processes? Can they evolve improvements in their evolutionary processes?