Natural selection or Virus infection

[jwu]

"The idea of a relatively sudden genetic change that alters evolution isn't new. Scientists, such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, proposed a mechanism called "punctuated equilibrium" more than two decades ago. This idea, not yet completely accepted by scientists, proposes that evolution has depended more often on sudden and unexpected changes in genomes rather than a simple Darwinian paradigm of gradual evolutionary change due to extremely long-term natural selection."

The emphasis should be on "long term" (from a geological timescale point of view) there, not on natural selection. Unless you think you know better what punk eek proposes than Gould himself, that is. After all, an increased speed of evolution due to increased natural selection due to changing niches is exactly what punk eek is about.

"The research of Jordan and McDonald is intriguing because it suggests that rather than simply playing a role in human evolution, retroviral elements may actually be implicated in the leap from chimpanzees to humans."

Humans did not come from a population of chimps, so whatever the author of that quote ment by "leap", you misinterprete it. I have no idea how this would relate in any way to natural selection either. Could you explain it?

 

[Jet Black]

It seems to me that you not only weigh too much on contexts, you almost make it like a semantic game. Errors? I consider that you misread and miscomprend more often than I do, purposely or not.

While the authors are proposing rapid changes, they are still not proposing saltationary leaps as you seem to be implying. On a timescale of tens of milliony of years, a couple of million years is still rather rapid. The authors are suggesting that it is a rapid change in the genomes of our ancestors which allowed the evolution (still by variations in the genome and differential reproductive success)

You have suggested that ERVs somehow do away with natural selection, and nothing in any of the arguments or quotations you have provided suggests that this is the case. Whether evolution occurs by saltationary mechanisms or through gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations is completely irrelevant to whether natural selection is responsible for the preservation of said changes.

 

[Hawkins]

The emphasis should be on "long term" (from a geological timescale point of view) there, not on natural selection. Unless you think you know better what punk eek proposes than Gould himself, that is. After all, an increased speed of evolution due to increased natural selection due to changing niches is exactly what punk eek is about.

Rather he's talking about the role of the natural selection is not the same as what Darwin suggested. Gould raised a doubt about the role of natural selection, punk eek or not. And his doubt is mentioned as a relevant part of the whole article.

Humans did not come from a population of chimps, so whatever the author of that quote ment by "leap", you misinterprete it. I have no idea how this would relate in any way to natural selection either. Could you explain it?

The research is intriguing because it suggests something different than usual, and which makes retroviral elements may actually be implicated in a leap in human evolution. Later on, the article mentioned that it is a vast and sophisticated process that it may not be taken as a simple process, rather it's a driving force of evolution in the cellular and organismal levels.

Why not just re-read the article, especially the last part to make some sense out of it, instead of asking me to quote repeatedly about every point the article is trying to make.

Anyhow, there are dramatic changes, as to what extent, since it's a vast and sophisticated process, any conclusion maybe too soon to draw.

"McDonald said it is increasingly clear that organisms need the viral elements and that their apparent continual backdoor assaults on normal genes may, in truth, be more like a vast, sophisticated chess game on an enormously complex board. This is the first evidence, however, that suggests they may have made humans what they are today."

"Just how these retroviral elements have moved around in the human genome and possibly changed organisms at the morphological level remains speculative. But there is increasing evidence that they may have been - and may still be - a driving force between evolution at the cellular and organismal levels."

 

[Jet Black]

Rather he's talking about the role of the natural selection is not the same as what Darwin suggested. Gould raised a doubt about the role of natural selection, punk eek or not. And his doubt is mentioned as a relevant part of the whole article.

Gould did not at all doubt the role of natural selection. what he didn't like was the idea of "constant speedism" where evolution progresses at the same slow pace. The core claim of the Punctuated Equilibrium is that Evolution is punctuated by short bursts of geologically rapid evolution.

The research is intriguing because it suggests something different than usual, and which makes retroviral elements may actually be implicated in a leap in human evolution. Later on, the article mentioned that it is a vast and sophisticated process that it may not be taken as a simple process, rather it's a driving force of evolution in the cellular and organismal levels.

beacuse it could possibly provide large amounts of variation on which Natural selection can act. The suggestion that ERVs are heavily involved in the evolution of humans does at no point suggest that natural selection did not play it's standard role. It is absolutely obvious that NS did play it's usual role, since whichever way you cut it as to how the variation occured, the differential in reproductive success rates swung in favour of the early hominids.

 

[Hawkins]

"This idea, not yet completely accepted by scientists, proposes that evolution has depended more often on sudden and unexpected changes in genomes rather than a simple Darwinian paradigm of gradual evolutionary change due to extremely long-term natural selection."

To me, "rather than" by no means equivalent to "in parallel" or "in compatible with".

I am almost done with you, it's so meaningless to circle around a semantic game which makes me qoute and quote to make a point repeatedly for someone to comprehend.

 

[Jet Black]

"This idea, not yet completely accepted by scientists, proposes that evolution has depended more often on sudden and unexpected changes in genomes rather than a simple Darwinian paradigm of gradual evolutionary change due to extremely long-term natural selection."

To me, "rather than" by no means equivalent to "in parallel" or "in compatible with".

I am almost done with you, it's so meaningless to circle around a semantic game which makes me qoute and quote to make a point repeatedly for someone to comprehend.

I fully comprehend what the article is talking about since I have studied this subject so some depth, though I admit the article is rather badly worded which could well lead to your confusion - I am not playing any semantic game, merely reading through the bad wording of the article you have quoted to us.

My suggestion to you is to actually learn something more substantial about these issues, and then you can come back and discuss things more fruitfully.

Furthermore, if it isn't in a proper scientific journal, then it tends to be a lay article, like that one, and often the wording of such articles can be rather sketchy. Don't hang on that article too much, it is not a good one in the first place.

 

[Hawkins]

If that article means nothing why not just point it out right away instead accussing me of misreading it and drag on the discussion. You are not even coherent to yourself and what you have said. In that sense, how much credit you have on whatever your background and whatever points you mentioned. You show up to be intellectually dishonest, not to speak the semantic game you tried hard to play along the thread.

Bad wording and confusing...yep at the last minute of a discussion you started to give discredit to the article the first time. Nice try but nothing more than a good grief.

--------
Just how these retroviral elements have moved around in the human genome and possibly changed organisms at the morphological level remains speculative. But there is increasing evidence that they may have been - and may still be - a driving force between evolution at the cellular and organismal levels.

The research of Jordan and McDonald is intriguing because it suggests that rather than simply playing a role in human evolution, retroviral elements may actually be implicated in the leap from chimpanzees to humans. Until a mere 50 years ago, scientists thought all genes worked from a stable position along a chromosome. That idea, however, began to change dramatically in the 1970s, when it became clear that the elements are pervasive in plant and animal genomes and that it simply made no sense that such elements would be conserved over thousands of millennia if they had no real function.

McDonald said it is increasingly clear that organisms need the viral elements and that their apparent continual backdoor assaults on normal genes may, in truth, be more like a vast, sophisticated chess game on an enormously complex board. This is the first evidence, however, that suggests they may have made humans what they are today.
--------

Here's for those late comers to read how bad wording and how confussing the article is.

 

[jwu]

Rather he's talking about the role of the natural selection is not the same as what Darwin suggested. Gould raised a doubt about the role of natural selection, punk eek or not. And his doubt is mentioned as a relevant part of the whole article.

Then please enlighten me with your own words instead of reiterated quotes in what way Gould's idea of natural selection was different from Darwin's. I honestly do not have any idea what that might be.

The research is intriguing because it suggests something different than usual, and which makes retroviral elements may actually be implicated in a leap in human evolution. Later on, the article mentioned that it is a vast and sophisticated process that it may not be taken as a simple process, rather it's a driving force of evolution in the cellular and organismal levels.

Possibly - but what does that have to do with natural selection? It might be different in so far as that it suggests something else than mutation as an influx of genetic material to humans, but that has no bearing whatsoever regarding natural selection.
You're argueing against the relevant mutation having taken place in humans (instead they would have happened whereever the virus got its genetic material from), not against natural selection.

Why not just re-read the article, especially the last part to make some sense out of it, instead of asking me to quote repeatedly about every point the article is trying to make.

I have read it many times now, and i still have no idea how you got to the conclusion that this article in some way disputes natural selection.

"McDonald said it is increasingly clear that organisms need the viral elements and that their apparent continual backdoor assaults on normal genes may, in truth, be more like a vast, sophisticated chess game on an enormously complex board. This is the first evidence, however, that suggests they may have made humans what they are today."

"Just how these retroviral elements have moved around in the human genome and possibly changed organisms at the morphological level remains speculative. But there is increasing evidence that they may have been - and may still be - a driving force between evolution at the cellular and organismal levels."

Again, this just considers that not all of the genetic material which is relevant to humans might be the result of mutations which took place in humans, but also could have been the result of insertions. How you come to the conclusion that this in some way questions natural selection is completely mysterious to me. Natural selection does not care where the genetic material came from, be it from in situ mutations or retroviral insertions. If it's deleterious to the organism, then natural selection will weed it out. If you don't think so, then please explain why.

"This idea, not yet completely accepted by scientists, proposes that evolution has depended more often on sudden and unexpected changes in genomes rather than a simple Darwinian paradigm of gradual evolutionary change due to extremely long-term natural selection."

To me, "rather than" by no means equivalent to "in parallel" or "in compatible with".

Yes, with focus on long term.
The following sentence makes perfect sense:
"It seems to have been the result of sped up short term evolution due to increased natural selection rather than a simple Darwinian paradigm of gradual evolutionary change due to extremely long-term natural selection."
The meaning of the words "rather than" is in no way compromised in it.

 

[random_guy]

That's exactly my doubt about natural selection. Yet I perceived someone else is so defensive and sound like everything inside the general term "evolution" is the truth and the whole truth, while they keep saying about having not enough evidence and there are still debates on "something". And any alternative thought could lead to discredits, and not a creditable scientist in the case that the alternative thought is from a scientist.

I'm not sure if this was in reply to my reply, because I have no idea what you're arguing against.

Are you aware of how science works? Do you know what we mean when we say debate? Scientists are duking it out fistcuff style. They publish papers on their views of what happens. This is what is meant by debate. This is how science works.

Next, in science, nothing is 100% proven. Theories do not evolve into facts. We won't be able to explain everything in science. Instead the best we can do is put up a theory.

Now, if you understand that much so far, here is what scientists are debating. They are debating the evolvutionary pathaways of creatures. Let me repeat, there is no creditable theory of how life arose than evolution. It doesn't mean that one doesn't exists, or that science instantly throws out anything that isn't evolution. The point is no other theory can explain the biodiversity of life on this planet. Can you think of any other scientific theory to explain lthe biodiversity?

So there's no doubt among the creditable scientists about evolution. There's no other alternative theory. Now evolution is a deep subject. There's lots we still don't know. What they're debating are the nitty gritty areas.

If you can follow this simple analogy, then maybe you can understand what the debates are about.

Gravity exists. No creditable scientists would argue otherwise. We have scientists that debate whether gravity is caused by gravitons or the bending of space-time.

According to your reasoning, if these scientists are so creditable or that gravity was so real, why the debate? Do you see the problem in your argument?

 

[Hawkins]

Natural selection does not care where the genetic material came from, be it from in situ mutations or retroviral insertions. If it's deleterious to the organism, then natural selection will weed it out.


"a simple Darwinian paradigm of gradual evolutionary change due to extremely long-term natural selection."

Re-read one of my previous post of which I said,

Maybe I should rephrase what I meant by "natural selection" as semantically meaningful as "a simple Darwinian paradigm of gradual evolutionary change due to extremely long-term natural selection".

As you said, it makes perfect sense, isn't it.

After reading the article, it seems to me you gave up the "leap" stuff.

Now you see how meaningless it is to throw out the version of "natural selection" which is not "a simple Darwinian paradigm" and then accuss me of attacking that version which is irrelevant to "a simple Darwinian paradigm". And dont expect me to take that bait either.

 

[superhawk007]

heres one.... if i take a bunch of dirt, set some explosives in the desert....given enough time an airplane will appear in perfect working order all shiny...fueled up and ready to fly. Further more beside it an airport will have formed out of the same explosion....evolution...right sure. But the idea is the exact same

 

[Spherical Time]

heres one.... if i take a bunch of dirt, set some explosives in the desert....given enough time an airplane will appear in perfect working order all shiny...fueled up and ready to fly. Further more beside it an airport will have formed out of the same explosion....evolution...right sure. But the idea is the exact same

Not really. No scientist ever makes a claim remotely like this involving evolution.

 

[random_guy]

Not really. No scientist ever makes a claim remotely like this involving evolution.

Either he was being sarcastic, or he's Kent Hovind's kid.

 

[Spherical Time]

Either he was being sarcastic, or he's Kent Hovind's kid.

Honestly, I find it hard to tell when I'm on this forum.

 

[Jet Black]

If that article means nothing why not just point it out right away instead accussing me of misreading it and drag on the discussion.

I repeatedly pointed out that you were wrong.

You are not even coherent to yourself and what you have said. In that sense, how much credit you have on whatever your background and whatever points you mentioned. You show up to be intellectually dishonest, not to speak the semantic game you tried hard to play along the thread.

nice ad hominem

 

[jwu]

Maybe I should rephrase what I meant by "natural selection" as semantically meaningful as "a simple Darwinian paradigm of gradual evolutionary change due to extremely long-term natural selection".

Ah, now we're getting forward. I indeed had missed that - apparently i was typing myself when you posted it, my next post followed only six minutes later. Thanks for pointing at it.

You see, what you're argueing against is not natural selection as anyone else understands it, but gradualism.
Natural selection of course plays a role in it, but it is not the same. By demonstrating that things aren't that gradual but sometimes occur faster than in other times only the middle part is affected. The part about gradual change.
"Natural selection" as anyone else here understands it is unaffected by things which can deal a blow to gradualism.

After reading the article, it seems to me you gave up the "leap" stuff.

It is very well possible that some of the genes which make humans distinct from other apes got inserted by retrovirus infections.
But this again has nothing to do with natural selection as anyone other than you uses the term - as differential reproductive success.

Now you see how meaningless it is to throw out the version of "natural selection" which is not "a simple Darwinian paradigm" and then accuss me of attacking that version which is irrelevant to "a simple Darwinian paradigm". And dont expect me to take that bait either.

I don't get what you are saying there, but i suppose it somehow relates to your misconception that natural selection=gradualism.