Natural Selection

[timwakefield 68]

survival of the fittest isnt mutation though. The example most often used is I believe butterflies that changed colors to blend in to surroundings. While this adaptation is wonderful, it is still a butterfly. So even if this is passed down its still a butterfly

Survival of the fittest is certainly not mutation. Neither is happiness the same thing as carrot juice. In other words, I fail to see your point.Regarding butterflies....yes they are still a butterfly. That is because this observed change has only been observed over the last 150 years or so (since the Industrial Revolution). In 300,000 years, it is entirely possible that the ancestors of some of today's butterflies have evolved into a brand new species. It is also extremely likely that regular butterflies would still exist. And it is also quite possible that butterflies will just always be butterflies.

i disagree. We adapt all the time, every day we adapt to something else, but all these adaptions dont lead to us evolving in any form. We just adapt but our DNA doesnt change. There is no reason for a mutation to occur b/c of a simple adaptation. Something drastic would have to take place

Adapting, in the sense of bringing an umbrella because it's raining, is different than species adaptation. A bluejay, for example, doesn't think to itself 'Boy I would have an easier time flying with a longer tail.' But it may happen that those bluejays with the longest tails thrive and produce the most offspring, passing their long tail gene down to their children, and after many many many generations the bluejay, as a species, will have grown a longer tail.

[Petoria 0]

Survival of the fittest is certainly not mutation. Neither is happiness the same thing as carrot juice. In other words, I fail to see your point.Adapting, in the sense of bringing an umbrella because it's raining, is different than species adaptation. A bluejay, for example, doesn't think to itself 'Boy I would have an easier time flying with a longer tail.' But it may happen that those bluejays with the longest tails thrive and produce the most offspring, passing their long tail gene down to their children, and after many many many generations the bluejay, as a species, will have grown a longer tail.

This is a great example, now over many, many, many more generations you may have a red bird that is 3 in. taller.

[Mattnxtc 0]

This is a great example, now over many, many, many more generations you may have a red bird that is 3 in. taller.

but is it still red bird? Heck we have humans that are under 5 foot and some over 7 foot but we dont dare think that the 7 footers are more evolved.

[crowTrobot 2]

survival of the fittest isnt mutation though. The example most often used is I believe butterflies that changed colors to blend in to surroundings. While this adaptation is wonderful, it is still a butterfly. So even if this is passed down its still a butterfly

you are still mixing terms which is making this confusing to respond to. i guess by "mutation" you mean "mutate into a new species"? (which is speciation, not genetic mutation). the moth changing color thing you refer to is not due to a random favorable mutation leading to natural selection - it is an *already evolved* ocillatory response to environment i think caused by a single gene.

I understanding the breeding part can produce "superior" species, but even breeding doesnt change a species.

yes it does, but you would not expect something to morph into a completely different animal in a few generations. it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of generations only evident in the fossil record to produce the radical changes you seem to be looking for in a few.

explain this some more...A am not sure where you are tryin to go with this one.

i was just explaining that for a single species to branch into more than one species requires parts of its population to become reproductively isolated from each other. otherwise even if beneficial mutations occur in individuals it will stay a single species through genetic homogenization.

i disagree. We adapt all the time, every day we adapt to something else, but all these adaptions dont lead to us evolving in any form. We just adapt but our DNA doesnt change. There is no reason for a mutation to occur b/c of a simple adaptation. Something drastic would have to take place

not sure what you are saying. our daily adaptations are behavioral - not physical. that's a different (but closely related) subject.

[crowTrobot 2]

but is it still red bird?

what would you expect it to be?

Heck we have humans that are under 5 foot and some over 7 foot but we dont dare think that the 7 footers are more evolved.

we would if some sort of selective pressure favored tall people to breed more frequently or more successfully than short people. if that were the case humans would evolve to be taller.

[Petoria 0]

but is it still red bird? Heck we have humans that are under 5 foot and some over 7 foot but we dont dare think that the 7 footers are more evolved.

Well, it was blue bird.If there were limited resources and humans had to compete for food, then more likely than not, most humans would end up being 7 ft. tall.

[crowTrobot 2]

Well, it was blue bird.

don't confuse matt lol. a cardinal(?) if that's the red bird you're talking about didn't evolve directly from a blue jay. they of course had a common ancestor in the distant past, but as far as passerines go they aren't even closely related. the fact that they both have crests is likely just coincidence.

[Mattnxtc 0]

what would you expect it to be? we would if some sort of selective pressure favored tall people to breed more frequently or more successfully than short people. if that were the case humans would evolve to be taller.

So basically what has been tried hundreds of times in the past when people tried to exterminate a race through breeding right? Problem is that even when this occurs no actual evolution occurs. They are still humans. Even in 100,000 years they will still be humans breeding

[crowTrobot 2]

So basically what has been tried hundreds of times in the past when people tried to exterminate a race through breeding right?

if you are referring to hitler he never even got started, but his goals certainly had the potential to change human evolution.

Problem is that even when this occurs no actual evolution occurs.

again you expect animals to morph into something radically different in a few generations. EVOLUTION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. IT IS SMALL CHANGES THAT ADD UP OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME. small changes certainly occur from generation to generation in individuals.humans are currently a poor example to look for signs of evolution anyway. we have a huge population that is already well-adapted to our environment and becoming more and more homogenized all the time, so it would be difficult if not impossible for humanity to undergo any significant species-wide changes (unless there is extreme environmental change).

Even in 100,000 years they will still be humans breeding

take 100 humans and completely isolate them in a radically different environment (colony on mars etc) and check back in 100000 years and see if they are still human.

[Mattnxtc 0]

again you expect animals to morph into something radically different in a few generations. EVOLUTION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. IT IS SMALL CHANGES THAT ADD UP OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME. small changes certainly occur from generation to generation in individuals.humans are currently a poor example to look for signs of evolution anyway. we have a huge population that is already well-adapted to our environment and becoming more and more homogenized all the time, so it would be difficult if not impossible for humanity to undergo any significant species-wide changes (unless there is extreme environmental change).

but still you are left with one problem. Even if over 100000 years there were small changes, that doesnt affect the DNA code. A change in height or color isnt what you would consider evolution is it?

take 100 humans and completely isolate them in a radically different environment (colony on mars etc) and check back in 100000 years and see if they are still human.

No this isnt a logical experiment either for a few reasons. 1. they would die out long before they could adapt2. Yes muscle masses might change due to different gravitational pulls but that is an affect on the body not a change in the body. The body will adapt but that doesnt mean the DNA will change. Those people bodies would be different than those on earth but the DNA will still be the same.

[crowTrobot 2]

but still you are left with one problem. Even if over 100000 years there were small changes, that doesnt affect the DNA code.

you are still thinking of this wrong. adaptation doesn't change DNA, random mutations do. then *after* DNA changes through random mutation, natural selection pressure picks out the mutations (changes) that are favorable for coping with the environment by better survival and breeding of the individual(s) with the favorable mutations.

A change in height or color isnt what you would consider evolution is it?

if the change is the result of natural selection then that's the definition of evolution.

No this isnt a logical experiment either for a few reasons. 1. they would die out long before they could adapt

it's a thought experiment so assume survival - you could say the moon, or a desert island or whatever. cosmic rays would probably kill most humans in the time it would take just to get to mars with current technology.

Those people bodies would be different than those on earth but the DNA will still be the same.

again you are thinking that evolution says adaptation causes genetic mutation, when that is not the case. genetic mutation is possibly caused by a number of things that have nothing to do with adaptation - cosmic rays and DNA shuffling via quantum superposition are the two candidates i'm familiar with. there are several others. according to evolutionary theory the adaptation (natural selection) comes *after* the mutation, not the other way around.in 100000 years people on mars if they survived would certainly NOT share 100% DNA with people on earth (assuming the populations are reproductively isolated from each other). how much they would share is a matter of debate, but there would be significant divergence. we can see this happening right now on earth with species that have had a small part of their populations become isolated on islands - their DNA does change detectably, and apparently in much less time than 100000 years.

[Mattnxtc 0]

you are still thinking of this wrong. adaptation doesn't change DNA, random mutations do. then *after* DNA changes through random mutation, natural selection pressure picks out the mutations (changes) that are favorable for coping with the environment by better survival and breeding of the individual(s) with the favorable mutations.

so now I am thinking about it wrong? If i understand you, you have only given examples of reasonf for adaptation. I havent heard a reason yet for a change in DNA. A change in height or weight or color IS NOT a DNA change.

if the change is the result of natural selection then that's the definition of evolution.

yet there is no actual DNA change. The species is still the same species just with a different color.

it's a thought experiment so assume survival - you could say the moon, or a desert island or whatever. cosmic rays would probably kill most humans in the time it would take just to get to mars with current technology.

But again this isnt science is it? To put somebody in a different situation is to not have "all things be equal" And in fact you would just be guessing. This would lead to a possible this and that which is more of a product of randomness not of any science

again you are thinking that evolution says adaptation causes genetic mutation, when that is not the case. genetic mutation is possibly caused by a number of things that have nothing to do with adaptation - cosmic rays and DNA shuffling via quantum superposition are the two candidates i'm familiar with. there are several others. according to evolutionary theory the adaptation (natural selection) comes *after* the mutation, not the other way around.in 100000 years people on mars if they survived would certainly NOT share 100% DNA with people on earth (assuming the populations are reproductively isolated from each other). how much they would share is a matter of debate, but there would be significant divergence. we can see this happening right now on earth with species that have had a small part of their populations become isolated on islands - their DNA does change detectably, and apparently in much less time than 100000 years.

and you base the bolded on? You cant make this assertion mainly b/c you dont know. So you are left assuming that this might be true but that is all. We know that radiation can cause mutations. We also know that these mutations are normally fatal to the human body or cause defects that cause the eventual death. So again you are left having to assume we can survive something that we cant survive.

[timwakefield 68]

So basically what has been tried hundreds of times in the past when people tried to exterminate a race through breeding right?

If we are talking about Hitler, he didn't try to exterminate anybody through breeding. He used gas chambers.

[timwakefield 68]

so now I am thinking about it wrong? If i understand you, you have only given examples of reasonf for adaptation. I havent heard a reason yet for a change in DNA. A change in height or weight or color IS NOT a DNA change.

Okay, here is a long example. You have a population of seagulls (let's not get mixed up with red and blue this time). For whatever reason, let's postulate that 10 or 20 of these seagulls get lost in a storm out at sea, and end up on an island. Say a hurricane blew them however far out to sea....far enough that they can't get back to their original home. They're able to survive on this island, but there are limited resources. There are other species of bird on the island, competing for the same fish to eat. But let's say that none of those native birds are good swimmers....they just dive into the water, steal a fish, and fly it back to land. The seagulls can swim, and look for fish by swimming around on the surface. But they are in direct competition with these other bird species. Those seagulls which are the best swimmers do the best job of catching fish, and therefore do the best job or surviving (because there's nothing else to eat).Now, one day a seagull is born with extra large webbed feet. His feet are fully 30% larger than the average gull. So that seagull can swim faster than any other gull. So it catches plent of food for itself and its mate, and produces many young. These young will generally tend to inherit the large-footedness trait, and will themselves be able to swim quite well. They catch more fish than the gulls without large feet. As more and more generations of large-footed gulls come around, the small-footed ones are no longer able to catch enough fish to survive. Now there are so many large-footed gulls that even they are having trouble catching enough fish. BUT THE ONES WITH THE LARGEST FEET ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO PRODUCE THE MOST YOUNG, and pass on the trait. So, the seagull has "adapted" in a sense, but not in the sense that the original gulls who came to the island realized "Hey, we need to learn to swim faster if we're gonna survive. Better grow some big feet or something." Instead, over generations and generations, those gulls who have the large-footed gene to the most helpful extent will be "naturally selected" to survive. There is a limited amount of energy which can be used in creating an animal's body. You will never see a dog who is 25 feet tall....it's just impossible. And you will never see a frog which is born with 25 heads. Likewise, our new gulls are expending more and more energy in growing larger and larger feet, and are thus unable to expend as much energy on building large wings. Fortunately, this happens not to matter much for them, because on this new island, they stick pretty much to the sea and the beach. They don't fly around much. As more and more energy is expended on growing the feet, less and less is expended on growing the wings. This doesn't matter to our gulls, because their wings are no longer particularly helpful to them. So you come and find this island 400,000 years later, after 40,000 generations of gulls have lived and died (I am guessing at their lifespan), and you no longer have gulls. You have seabirds which cannot fly particularly well and have enormous webbed feet. Their DNA is different enough from that of their ancestors that they are classified as a new species.THIS is adaptation, and speciation.

[crowTrobot 2]

so now I am thinking about it wrong?

you always were.

yet there is no actual DNA change.

yes there is. that's the point.

But again this isnt science is it? To put somebody in a different situation is to not have "all things be equal" And in fact you would just be guessing. This would lead to a possible this and that which is more of a product of randomness not of any science

it certainly is science to postulate what should happen to species that have part of their population become reproductively isolated, and then go look at islands or other situations where populations of species HAVE become reproductively isolated and and study what's going on.

and you base the bolded on?

a mountain of pre-existing evidence for genetic divergence in isolated populations on earth.

We know that radiation can cause mutations. We also know that these mutations are normally fatal

large doses of radiation are frequently fatal. small doses as from the small percentage of cosmic rays that reach us through the earth's atmosphere are usually not. and as stated there are several other possible causes of small-scale genetic mutation that have nothing to do with radiation.

[suitedinc 0]

These young will generally tend to inherit the large-footedness trait

This would only be true if the large footedness was due to a dominate gene, not a recessive one. The fact that no gull had it previously, would lead you to believe that the gene was NOT dominant. In this case, the recessive gene could only control the outcome, a larger foot, by breeding with other gulls that only have recessive genes, in effect wiping out the dominant gene completely. This is pretty far fetched.....

[MDXS 0]

This would only be true if the large footedness was due to a dominate gene, not a recessive one. The fact that no gull had it previously, would lead you to believe that the gene was NOT dominant. In this case, the recessive gene could only control the outcome, a larger foot, by breeding with other gulls that only have recessive genes, in effect wiping out the dominant gene completely. This is pretty far fetched.....

Nonsense. You realize that the gene for having six fingers is dominant, right?

[suitedinc 0]

Nonsense. You realize that the gene for having six fingers is dominant, right?

Site your source

[crowTrobot 2]

The fact that no gull had it previously, would lead you to believe that the gene was NOT dominant.

not if it's a *new* mutation not existing previously. obviously the occasional expression of a pre-existing recessive trait won't accomplish much evolution (although it potentially could in an extreme circumstance) - but that's not what we're talking about.

[timwakefield 68]

This would only be true if the large footedness was due to a dominate gene, not a recessive one. The fact that no gull had it previously, would lead you to believe that the gene was NOT dominant. In this case, the recessive gene could only control the outcome, a larger foot, by breeding with other gulls that only have recessive genes, in effect wiping out the dominant gene completely. This is pretty far fetched.....

Are you saying my example is far-fetched? Well, you can change large-footedness to any trait you like, it's just a hypothetical. For example, say the trait was for large wings instead. Certainly that could be a dominant gene.

[MDXS 0]

Cite your source

FYPand:From Wikipedia.

[copernicus 0]

FYPand:From Wikipedia.

Here is a good article on ring specieswhich explains reproductive isolation and speciation fairly succinctly.I also question whether max isn't being intentionally disingenuous, and is actually trying to lay groundwork for some ID trap.

[Dhall901 0]

Basically the hot people get to have sex and make babies.That is all.