Evolution for Drotar

[Drotar]

genetics does not have any safeguards againt microevolution, over time, generating new species. in fact the opposite. there are a number of methods, by which a species can become vastly different to another in a relatively short amount of time. wheat is a prime example of this.

Perhaps what I was taught was incorrect.

I am referring to cellular reproduction, specifically the process of DNA being copied. Does any logical mind really think that all this on a sub-cellular level just happened spontaneously?

Wheat does not become a new species though. Remember that these microchanges are random. They must BENEFIT the new group. Microevolution COULD occur, but more likely than not, micro-devolution.

Taxomony is key to the semantics here.

 

[Drotar]

And I am quite sure that DNA Polymerase is quite that mechanism.

 

[Jet Black]

That's another thing. Taxonomy only adds to the confusion.

I'll tell you that what I consider "different species" would be barriers in reproduction. Since the theory of natural selection (which I believe) depends on such reproduction, I would say that is the boundary.

yeah, and those barriers can develop over time or space. If you look up "ring species" such as the black backed gull, you can see this process happening. this goes back to my original issue of what actually stops a dog and cat from having a common ancestor?

the avatar is excellent by the way.... not as good as mine, but then none are

 

[Jet Black]

And I am quite sure that DNA Polymerase is quite that mechanism.

I doubt it, isn't DNA polymerase just the enzyme that replicates the DNA in cell growth? anyway, there are alot of things such as inversions and chromosome replications, translocations and so on. I will let someone who knows more discuss that with you though.

 

[Arikay]

I looked it up and I couldnt find any info about it providing that type of mechanism.

May I suggest reading the link about the weed. Speciation has been observed to happen, on more than one occassion, this is just one.

And I am quite sure that DNA Polymerase is quite that mechanism.

 

[Jet Black]

Perhaps what I was taught was incorrect.

1) I am referring to cellular reproduction, specifically the process of DNA being copied. Does any logical mind really think that all this on a sub-cellular level just happened spontaneously?

2) Wheat does not become a new species though. Remember that these microchanges are random.

3) They must BENEFIT the new group. Microevolution COULD occur, but more likely than not, micro-devolution.

Taxomony is key to the semantics here.

1) I don't understand what you are trying to say here

2) beware on commenting on things if you don't know about them. Modern wheat is very different, especially on a cellular level, to natural grasses and so on. It is a prime example of polyploidy and hybridisation of different species. they are not small changes at all!

3) why would devolution occur? it would just get selected out if it could not compete in the environment. I don't think I have seen a single example of a inferior species living in an environment that has pushed out it's parent species, could you provide an example?

 

[Drotar]

Ah, whatever... Fairly Odd Parents beats (Tri-gun?) anyday.

Please elaborate. You reason that these barriers develop over time or space. You presuppose that these barrier develop in the first place. And if these barriers DO develop, remember, they must have some sort of evolutionary benefit. ALL species have them. Isn't that somewhat coincidental? To have simply developed over time and space? What is the benefit of having a barrier? HOW is it that these barriers are created over time and space? At best, the answers are assumptions. Shall I say exaggerated extrapolation of what we DO KNOW of genetic microevolution.

Has microevolution that has helped a species actually ever been observed? I'm not talking about natural selection like the pepper moth, but rather of transpeciation. Have we observed any species in a transition towards another? And doesn't the fact that there is a transition in the first place make the metabolic cost for the new traits that have not yet taken form LESS beneficial? Wouldn't animals that WERE in a transition never make it logically since that transition uses up metabolic energy, making them less favorable to survivial?

TTYL Jesus lvoes you!

 

[Drotar]

AAahh! You're going to fast!

Coffee! More coffee!

 

[Drotar]

I doubt it, isn't DNA polymerase just the enzyme that replicates the DNA in cell growth? anyway, there are alot of things such as inversions and chromosome replications, translocations and so on. I will let someone who knows more discuss that with you though.

Oh yeah, DNA polymerase does not ultimately prevent all mutations. And maybe it's not DNA polymerase, but it's something. I don't think it's ribase, I really think that's it. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, that enzyme does not prevent mutations ultimately. It decreases the chances so that they happen with MUCH less frequency. And add that to the already minute chance that those translocations, etc. actually HELP the survival of the animal, (in other words is a beneficial mutation), and you're left with a number that's less than like 10 million to one. For just that ONE animal. Because remember- organisms don't evolve, populations do.

If you're the evolutionist, you get the one. TTYL Jesus lvoes you!

 

[Drotar]

I looked it up and I couldnt find any info about it providing that type of mechanism.

May I suggest reading the link about the weed. Speciation has been observed to happen, on more than one occassion, this is just one.

Then it is the flaw of the taxonomers that call some weeds that look different a new species. Copernicus was told how stupid he was for going up against the other brilliant astrologers of his day. Many of us who discredit the taxonomy system are seen as if we're going against Scripture. What they decided is not necessarily inerrant. I believe the classification system is flawed. What are there, like 100 million species of insects? That's when people get trigger happy about naming something a new species.

 

[Jet Black]

Ah, whatever... Fairly Odd Parents beats (Tri-gun?) anyday.

Hellsing

Please elaborate. You reason that these barriers develop over time or space. You presuppose that these barrier develop in the first place. And if these barriers DO develop, remember, they must have some sort of evolutionary benefit. ALL species have them. Isn't that somewhat coincidental? To have simply developed over time and space? What is the benefit of having a barrier? HOW is it that these barriers are created over time and space? At best, the answers are assumptions. Shall I say exaggerated extrapolation of what we DO KNOW of genetic microevolution.

not all mutations nescessarily have an evolutionary benefit as such. This is just an example of genetic dift... there are alterations in the chromosomal structure that added together over time stop on specied from breeding with another branch. remember that the two groups that are separated form their own little gene pool and are isolated from the other group. an example of this is in horses (I like this because creationist often cite a "horse kind" since horses have 32 pairs of chrimosomes, and donkeys have 31. Again I suggest you look up ring species to show you that this really does happen...

Has microevolution that has helped a species actually ever been observed? I'm not talking about natural selection like the pepper moth, but rather of transpeciation. Have we observed any species in a transition towards another?

This is starting to look like the cartoon evolution. All species are transitional species on their way to something new, possibly with the exception of humans and artificially selected domesticated animals. Although there is an african tribe called !kung who are on their way to becoming a separate species due to having a small gene pool.

And doesn't the fact that there is a transition in the first place make the metabolic cost for the new traits that have not yet taken form LESS beneficial? Wouldn't animals that WERE in a transition never make it logically since that transition uses up metabolic energy, making them less favorable to survivial?

I don't quite know what you think this transition is... could you try to describe what you think transition from one species to another is?

 

[Drotar]

1) I don't understand what you are trying to say here

2) beware on commenting on things if you don't know about them. Modern wheat is very different, especially on a cellular level, to natural grasses and so on. It is a prime example of polyploidy and hybridisation of different species. they are not small changes at all!

3) why would devolution occur? it would just get selected out if it could not compete in the environment. I don't think I have seen a single example of a inferior species living in an environment that has pushed out it's parent species, could you provide an example?

I misunderstood you. Yes, wheat is very different from grass. Who's going to argue with that? I thought you were referring to different types of wheat. I'm assuming that there's more than one, right? They can interbreed.

Devolution would occur for, not the population, but that mutated organism. I mean to say, that organism with the higher metabolic cost, in which he is substandard. He has a lower chance of survival. Thus he has devolved, in a loose sense of the word. The fact that you would get selected out is precisely what I'm making a reference to. Since you have a lower rate of survival, you are more inefficient. I used the term devolved liberally.

 

[Jet Black]

Oh yeah, DNA polymerase does not ultimately prevent all mutations. And maybe it's not DNA polymerase, but it's something. I don't think it's ribase, I really think that's it. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, that enzyme does not prevent mutations ultimately. It decreases the chances so that they happen with MUCH less frequency. And add that to the already minute chance that those translocations, etc. actually HELP the survival of the animal, (in other words is a beneficial mutation), and you're left with a number that's less than like 10 million to one. For just that ONE animal. Because remember- organisms don't evolve, populations do.

If you're the evolutionist, you get the one. TTYL Jesus lvoes you!

you are specifically talking about mutations there though, the vast majority of evolution occurs as a result of sexual reproduction. and as you say, not all mutations are beneficial, but they can separate one gene pool from another, as in the case of horses and donkeys.

when you look at it, there isn't a massive lot of difference between a horse and a donkey, just some structural stuff, and yet they have speciated.

 

[Jet Black]

I misunderstood you. Yes, wheat is very different from grass. Who's going to argue with that? I thought you were referring to different types of wheat. I'm assuming that there's more than one, right? They can interbreed.

I mean modern day wheat is very different, as I mentioned polyploidy and hybridisation. I forget exact numbers now, but I think modern wheat has 3/4 times as many chromosomes as old wheat, and is a hybrid of two or three different types of wheat.

Devolution would occur for, not the population, but that mutated organism. I mean to say, that organism with the higher metabolic cost, in which he is substandard. He has a lower chance of survival. Thus he has devolved, in a loose sense of the word. The fact that you would get selected out is precisely what I'm making a reference to. Since you have a lower rate of survival, you are more inefficient. I used the term devolved liberally.

well anything that does not have an advantage will get selected out (at least over time) but I don't get why you keep bringing this higher metabolic cost in.... what do you mean?

 

[Jet Black]

Then it is the flaw of the taxonomers that call some weeds that look different a new species.

please actually look at the examples. the weed, if It is the same one as I am thinking of, is a prime example of speciation.

 

[Jet Black]

yeap, that weed is a hybrid between two other species that cannot breed with any other species but it's own (not even the parent species that it hbridised from) I think that comfortably fits into the definition of a species in anyone's book... or do you have a problem with it?

 

[Arikay]

1) Just because you dont like the results, doesnt mean its automatically flawed. (edited to add in words I left out).

2) I dont believe this new weed can successfully breed with other weeds. That would meet your own definition of a new species.

3) As I said, this is not the only example, I only listed 1 since this was a discussion between you and lucaspa. He has a rather extensive list, and can probably explain each one.

Then it is the flaw of the taxonomers that call some weeds that look different a new species. Copernicus was told how stupid he was for going up against the other brilliant astrologers of his day. Many of us who discredit the taxonomy system are seen as if we're going against Scripture. What they decided is not necessarily inerrant. I believe the classification system is flawed. What are there, like 100 million species of insects? That's when people get trigger happy about naming something a new species.

 

[Drotar]

Hellsing

Hmm... never seen it before.

not all mutations nescessarily have an evolutionary benefit as such. This is just an example of genetic dift... there are alterations in the chromosomal structure that added together over time stop on specied from breeding with another branch. remember that the two groups that are separated form their own little gene pool and are isolated from the other group. an example of this is in horses (I like this because creationist often cite a "horse kind" since horses have 32 pairs of chrimosomes, and donkeys have 31. Again I suggest you look up ring species to show you that this really does happen...

Yes, I was pondering the example of the mule. My claim that a new species is measured by a reproductive barrier was not infallible, but something to go by.

That's the Founder effect. I'm aware that it does this. And yes, as I stated earlier, it created the different human races we see today. But no one claims that I'm a different species from you. I am not arguing against the Founder effect. It has Biblical application.

Now, the claim that horses and donkeys came from the Founder effect is very much an assumption. Very much so. Donkeys are not horses. They are different and were created differently. The lack of a reproductive barrier should raise questions for BOTH of us. Why did it not develop/ why was it not created?

This is starting to look like the cartoon evolution. All species are transitional species on their way to something new, possibly with the exception of humans and artificially selected domesticated animals. Although there is an african tribe called !kung who are on their way to becoming a separate species due to having a small gene pool.

Not likely. Remember that the only way that a new species can evolve is if the old trait dies out while a new one is introduced, and becomes more pronounced. The old trait will not die out. Because we will not let it. If ever there is a reason why a large number of people possessing the old trait that are dying out before they reach their teen years, we, as humans, will rush to the aid and offer medical assistance.

If we prevent all death before the age of reproduction, we prevent all evolution.

This new species will only be created if we let nature take it's course, supposedly, and never step in to prevent the death of the young teenagers. Now, we will NEVER be able to prevent ALL death before the age of reproduction, but with our modern medicine and our donations of limited resources (if it ever gets to that point), we will have successfully stopped a new species from emerging. If we apply our medicine to all animals, such that animals do not die before the age of reproduction, we have stopped animal evolution around us. This is in perfect theory.

I don't quite know what you think this transition is... could you try to describe what you think transition from one species to another is?

Let me see, for example, when some frogs in a nearby pond, for some reason, evolve a new leg, it does not happen immediately, but rather gradually. Or with a horse having less toes. Or a beetle that develops a pair of wings. The wings become pronounced gradually through several generations.

If they happen suddenly, as in the next generation magically is born with some wings, then in nature (first, that doesn't just happen), second, the mother of every species I know of will abandon or kill her young if it is mutated. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Jet Black]

et me see, for example, when some frogs in a nearby pond, for some reason, evolve a new leg, it does not happen immediately, but rather gradually. Or with a horse having less toes.

I am cooking at the moment, so I will get back to the rest of your post... but for horses having less toes, the answer is yes:

http://christianforums.com/t52550

 

[Drotar]

you are specifically talking about mutations there though, the vast majority of evolution occurs as a result of sexual reproduction. and as you say, not all mutations are beneficial, but they can separate one gene pool from another, as in the case of horses and donkeys.

when you look at it, there isn't a massive lot of difference between a horse and a donkey, just some structural stuff, and yet they have speciated.

Since evolution denies the Law of use and disuse, I see no other way. You cannot say that fish needed to fins, so they developed them, or that giraffes needed long necks, so over thousands of years after stretching, they're as tall as they are today.

You must say that some genetic trait appeared in a population that was beneficial, and thus it was introduced more and more into the gene pool.

Now, that mode of 'appearing' cannot be Use and Disuse. The mode of appearing cannot be what happened to be needed or what was convenient. It must be that somehting that was convenient appeared, and since it helped with survival, it become more common, etc.