Directed Evolution

[The Barbarian]

I guess my philosophically inclined mental block in this is that I keep thinking--however wrongly, I suppose--that any adaptation worthy of the term 'evolution' is that which takes place, and which proves itself naturally within nature, over a very, very long time rather than within a comparatively miniscule time in a local lab.

In about 20 years, a population of lizards that colonized a new island, evolved a new digestive organ (among other things). Would that be a long time?

And I'm guessing that you don't know the scientific definition of "evolution." What do you think it is?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, but evolution is a process where species adapt naturally over time, right?

I guess my philosophically inclined mental block in this is that I keep thinking--however wrongly, I suppose--that any adaptation worthy of the term 'evolution' is that which takes place, and which proves itself naturally within nature, over a very, very long time rather than within a comparatively miniscule time in a local lab.

However, in saying this, I do realize that this gut intuition of mine is rather the vestiges of an infantile expectation by which I hold a kind of privatized definition of evolution through selection. So, I have a difficult time reconciling what I think are ambiguities in the concepts being compared in this thread--and directed evolution doesn't sound to me like it's really qualified as a form of 'evolution' since it's artificial and temporally done at the micro-scale.

Think of it as descent with modification (each generation is slightly different from the previous, so you're an example of that in that you aren't a clone of your parents) and natural selection. Where the environment weeds out those who are the least well adapted and leaves those who are the best fit to pass on their genes. The fittest.

The changes can be very small indeed and if the environment doesn't change much then natural selection will be a very slow process. But it can happen very quickly as in the case of the tuskless elephants: Think humans aren't affecting evolution? Elephants are ditching their tusks to dodge poachers

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In about 20 years, a population of lizards that colonized a new island, evolved a new digestive organ (among other things). Would that be a long time?

On the level of alleles, I think it would be. But that's still different in its constitution than is a situation where some technician artificially imposes changes through directed mutagenics.

And I'm guessing that you don't know the scientific definition of "evolution." What do you think it is?

Don't worry. I know what it is, and not only do I have dozens upon dozens of books and sources that describe the status quo version of evolution [Biologos being one of my sources], but I studied it for my Master's as well, along with having to go through those basic Biology courses we all have to take as undergraduates.

So, don't worry, bro! I get it. I may not remember every detail I've ever studied or read and may have to review them from time to time, but I've engaged it at various times. Moreover, I'll be first to admit taht there's always a lot to learn with all of this anyway, isn't there?

 

[The Barbarian]

On the level of alleles, I think it would be. But that's still different in its constitution than is a situation where some technician artificially imposes changes through directed mutagenics.

Give us a situation where some technician artificially imposes changes through directed mutagenics.

And I'm guessing that you don't know the scientific definition of "evolution." What do you think it is?

Don't worry. I know what it is

But you can't tell us what it is? How so?

I studied it for my Master's as well, along with having to go through those basic Biology courses we all have to take as undergraduates.

You think evolutionary theory is taught in basic biology courses?

 

[Astrid]

Yes, but evolution is a process where species adapt naturally over time, right?

I guess my philosophically inclined mental block in this is that I keep thinking--however wrongly, I suppose--that any adaptation worthy of the term 'evolution' is that which takes place, and which proves itself naturally within nature, over a very, very long time rather than within a comparatively miniscule time in a local lab.

However, in saying this, I do realize that this gut intuition of mine is rather the vestiges of an infantile expectation by which I hold a kind of privatized definition of evolution through selection. So, I have a difficult time reconciling what I think are ambiguities in the concepts being compared in this thread--and directed evolution doesn't sound to me like it's really qualified as a form of 'evolution' since it's artificial and temporally done at the micro-scale.

People are natural. Sure are not supernatural.
Animals shape and control their environments
and affect the evolution of other organisms.

If there is a bright line distinction between what people do
and thar which is "natural" i cant think where it is.
Still less that it really means much.
Dogs apparently domesticated themselves.
FTM, the various birds and mammals of our cities are being
changed by city life.
I dont know where natural evolution leaves off if it does or if it matters.

Micro scale- wise, i think if people set out to breed long legged
80 lb carnivorous rats, it would take a while but i dont doubt it
could be done.

Course it wont be a rat anymore.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Give us a situation where some technician artificially imposes changes through directed mutagenics.

Oh, sorry. I probably should have said "mutagenesis." That's what the article in the OP states, anyway.

And I'm guessing that you don't know the scientific definition of "evolution." What do you think it is?
But you can't tell us what it is? How so?

As I was told by others here, bro, "anyone can just look it up." Of course, a person so looking would probably need to understand that there's a difference between the simple term "evolution" and the theory of that same term, right?

So, since I don't believe it's my job to memorize all 1 billion words I've ever read, here's me looking up the term "evolution" from what I know is a respected source and linking it. Can I be permitted to just hand this in and receive credit?

Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations | Learn Science at Scitable

You think evolutionary theory is taught in basic biology courses?

It can be, on a basic level. How well and to what extent it's taught will depend on the teachers involved in any one class, their curriculum goals, and in what way they think it's true, right? I know that we covered it in general terms in high school biology as well as in my college Biology course. And then, too, it was mentioned in the Biology text-books we had to read for those respective courses.

 

[The Barbarian]

Give us a situation where some technician artificially imposes changes through directed mutagenics.

Oh, sorry. I probably should have said "mutagenesis." That's what the article in the OP states, anyway

But you can't think of an example? How so?

And I'm guessing that you don't know the scientific definition of "evolution." What do you think it is?

(declines to say)

But you can't tell us what it is? How so?

As I was told by others here, bro, "anyone can just look it up."

If you don't know what it is, why are you telling us about it?

So, since I don't believe it's my job to memorize all 1 billion words I've ever read, here's me looking up the term "evolution" from what I know is a respected source and linking it. Can I be permitted to just hand this in and receive credit?

Nope. That's not the scientific definition. It's somewhat like Darwin's original description, but today it's more specific.

And it matters to the things you're talking about.

You think evolutionary theory is taught in basic biology courses?

It can be, on a basic level

I've taught basic biology. No one, from taking a year of basic biology, will have a decent understanding of evolutionary theory.

I know that we covered it in general terms in high school biology as well as in my college Biology course.

So tell us the basic points of evolutionary theory. Not the complexities, just the basic outline. What can you tell us?

 

[The Barbarian]

Dogs apparently domesticated themselves.

Yes, that seems to be the case. We didn't domesticate them; they joined us. And the evidence suggests that we co-evolved, each species changing the other in our partnership.

For example, neither apes nor wolves know that a pointing finger is saying "look over there", but humans and dogs intuitively know this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Give us a situation where some technician artificially imposes changes through directed mutagenics.



But you can't think of an example? How so?

And I'm guessing that you don't know the scientific definition of "evolution." What do you think it is?

(declines to say)

But you can't tell us what it is? How so?



If you don't know what it is, why are you telling us about it?



Nope. That's not the scientific definition. It's somewhat like Darwin's original description, but today it's more specific.

And it matters to the things you're talking about.

You think evolutionary theory is taught in basic biology courses?



I've taught basic biology. No one, from taking a year of basic biology, will have a decent understanding of evolutionary theory.



So tell us the basic points of evolutionary theory. Not the complexities, just the basic outline. What can you tell us?

ok. Let's keep this simple: I'm not answering any of these questions, not only because I feel you're being concertedly condescending to me in a snowjob fashion, because at NO TIME in this thread have I claimed to be the "expert" in this field. And for me to attempt to say much outside of my own basic studies (which were over 10 years ago) would be extending beyond my knowledge and expertise.

I will not tell you what you want to here, and as the socially activist minded person that I am, I won't cooperate.

How's that for an answer?

Now, let me get back to my Barbara J. King book. Thanks!

 

[The Barbarian]

ok. Let's keep this simple: I'm not answering any of these questions, not only because I feel you're being concertedly condescending to me in a snowjob fashion, because at NO TIME in this thread have I claimed to be the "expert" in this field.

And being concertedly condescending puts people off, right?

I will not tell you what you want to here, and as the socially activist minded person that I am, I won't cooperate.

You could tell me, but you won't. Because you're socially activist. I get it.

Now, let me get back to my Barbara J. King book.

Ethology is not evolution, but much of it is explained by evolution. You might start with King Solomon's Ring.

Animal epistemology, so to speak.

 

[The Barbarian]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh, sorry. I probably should have said "mutagenesis." That's what the article in the OP states, anyway.

When researching evolution in the lab, scientists may want to speed up the process and/or investigate a greater number and/or variety of mutations than would otherwise be possible, by artificially increasing the number of mutations that occur.

When scientists want to produce proteins with particular properties, they use this technique and each generation, select only the organisms that produce proteins that come closest to the properties they're after. This is directed evolution because they're selecting for some specified outcome. Natural selection is not goal-directed, it's simply the result of the survival and reproduction of those best fitted to their environment.

 

[Astrid]

Oh, I see. We have different ideas about what constitutes substantive interlocution.

Yes, I most definitely DO expect others to show me "their homework." I don't give a rat's butt about their present seeming opinions or present understanding on some topic. I want to see how they've sourced and constructed their views. You guys on the other hand seem to instead want a song-and-dance demonstration as a test to see if we (Christians typically) can measure up to your acumen before you decide to engage anything we might have to either say, or, on a more minute level, bring to the table of discussion.

The fact is, you and I didn't even engage as yet. You tossed a Wikipedia article(s) at me, and I tossed something back. In my estimation, this kind of thing is but the beginning of birth-pangs in research and analysis; it's hardly the stuff of an intention to express some definitive endpoint.

So, since we didn't even get to discuss any aspects of anything related to what we thought we were focusing on, I think it's safe to say that neither of us can cite the other as being "in error." If anything, we're just talking past each other and it probably comes from us having a different idea about what constitutes substantive constructs of thought.

I will admit, though, that I intentionally meant to briefly detour this thread ... mainly because I don't see the whole panoply of evolutionary concepts (whether theoretical or applied) as anything other than a rabbit's hole. You guys, on the other hand, seem to see it as a 'done deal' with nothing really to question.

Am I wrong to think this?

You are if you consider me one of such guys.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And being concertedly condescending puts people off, right?

Yes, it can. And that's why I usually refrain from being condescending to others. Except, of course, where those others have already been condescending to me ... and rather unhelpful in learning. And yes, I know that's something Jesus might not approve of. But there it is. Call me existentially impaired, if you will.

Do you feel I've ever been condescending to you? As far as I know, I haven't yet been.

You could tell me, but you won't. Because you're socially activist. I get it.

Here's another way. Rather than having me taking time to write out (and guess) about how you prefer to see the essential principles of evolution spelled out, you instead just mention which source you think 'evolution' is best define by. And then I can look at that source and tell you whether or not I agree with it. Is that acceptable since Biology is not my forte?

Ethology is not evolution, but much of it is explained by evolution. You might start with King Solomon's Ring.

Animal epistemology, so to speak.

That sounds like an interesting source and I'll keep in mind for future reference, but honestly, I'm reading King's book, Evolving God, which tracks in a slightly different direction than the source you've offered, and I'm mainly reading it to attempt to suggest answers to question(s) that my non-believing son is having trouble coming to grips with in considering the Christian faith ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When researching evolution in the lab, scientists may want to speed up the process and/or investigate a greater number and/or variety of mutations than would otherwise be possible, by artificially increasing the number of mutations that occur.

When scientists want to produce proteins with particular properties, they use this technique and each generation, select only the organisms that produce proteins that come closest to the properties they're after. This is directed evolution because they're selecting for some specified outcome. Natural selection is not goal-directed, it's simply the result of the survival and reproduction of those best fitted to their environment.

Alright. Thanks for the information, FB! I'll check it out further and attempt to add this to my knowledge base.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, it can. And that's why I usually refrain from being condescending to others.

Everyone has a bad day, don't worry about it.

Here's another way. Rather than having me taking time to write out (and guess) about how you prefer to see the essential principles of evolution spelled out, you instead just mention which source you think 'evolution' is best define by.

How about you just tell us what you think it is? Sounds easy to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Everyone has a bad day, don't worry about it.



How about you just tell us what you think it is? Sounds easy to me.

No, at most, I'd list the sources that have influenced by own thinking. But I'm not going to take the time to explicate a specific (and acceptable) definition of "evolution."

Thanks for your help. You're a real team-player, fellow Christian!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are if you consider me one of such guys.

Consider you as "what"? What precisely are you referring to?

 

[Astrid]

Consider you as "what"? What precisely are you referring to?

See last three lines of yours, the post I quoted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

See last three lines of yours, the post I quoted.

Oh? So you don't think the concept of evolution is a done deal?