What do you know "without googling" about the reputed mechanisms for evolution?

by gubberningbody 66 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  gubberningbody

  1. drwtsn32 said nothing

  2. bohm said - "look at this link!"

  3. inkling got 50% with "Natural Selection" ("genetic drift" and "sexual selection" are saying the same thing a bit differently)

  4. bts - Got totally lost confusing various ideas of biogenesis and cosmogenesis when the mechanisms for evolution as currrently understood have absolutely nothing to do with the origins of life or this universe.

  5. TD - said "Hey! look at all the cacti! (don't even get me started on 'species') when the word "species" itself has various usages even in the biological sciences.

  (some have noted -me - how these are circular in some cases describing species as any freely breeding animals (which is merely observational) vs being capable of producing fertile offspring. In either case the process of speciation is problematic when we can't decide exactly what constitues a species historically without observing behavior. (the form of an animal may 'look' the same as another and yet we find that it does not 'freely interbreed' )

  6. Midget - Responded as if it had received some response from someone (a straw man?) and then instead of discussing the other half of the mechanism random "mutations" quickly made transit to a different phrase which means the same thing as "natural selection" ("selective pressure on the phenotypes that result from those altered genotypes tends to direct in someway.")

  Ok. I'll clarify your thinking.

  1. There are at least four different forms of evolution. These "forms" are n-furcated due to the choices in gap-bridging that people engage in.

  A. Microevolution - the diversity with "species" as well as the "speciation" which occurs through natural selection (genetic drift, sexual selection, pressure)

  B. Macroevolution - the gross changes in morphology and genetic makeup which some have attempted to trace descent though morphological similarity, or in some cases, genetic similarity in makeup. (look up the genetic differences/similarities between cromangon and neanderthal)

  C. Evolution- Those who insist A and B are the same, with the same mechanisms operating over a longer period of time.

  D. Evolution* - Those who insist that there are processes which are currently in operation and others which occur at varying intervals.

  The simple answer is random mutations and natural selection.

  There are no other known mechanisms whereby novelty might be introduced. (and before someone mentions jumping genes or hoc genes and confuses themselves further, they should remember that these operate on what is present. These do not introduce novelty.)

  We really should unpack natural selection further.

  Natural selection is all about differential reproduction. (How many babies you have. If you die with the most you win (for now))

  In any case even if it is true that sometimes "shit happens" we have to remember that "shit" that "happens" has to be either the "shit" of mutation or the "shit" of natural selection.

  The Origin of Faeces or Origin of Species?

  ("shit happens" either way)

  It's important to keep this in mind.

  That's it.

  Evolution is about AFTER it got going, not HOW it got going.

  Now there are some interesting crackpots like Rupert Sheldrake and his theory of formative causation and morphogenetic fields as explanatory ideas which attempt to ameliorate the impasse as regards novelty and direction
• 

  TD

  TD - said "Hey! look at all the cacti! (don't even get me started on 'species') when the word "species" itself has various usages even in the biological sciences.

  LOL. I picked an extremely esoteric topic and only told half the story because I was curious if you yourself were the sort of googler that you remonstrated against in the OP. It's true there are various definitions of species in biology, but only an armchair googler would mix those common to zoology with those common to botany, or bring up the subject of behavior when presented with an observation on plants, or fail to grasp why cacti are a unique life form to make this observation about. At any rate, the observation is not mine, it was made by Dr. Charles Butterworth at a lecture I recently attended. I had that in mind when I wasted my time here.
• 

  inkling

  "genetic drift" and "sexual selection" are saying the same thing a bit differently

  Uh... yeah, they are so not.

  The trait that ends up being sexually selected for may have initially
  come from a random and reproductive-neutral trait, but as soon as
  the female starts preferring males with that trait, it stops being
  reproductively neutral (i.e., stops being genetic drift), and starts
  being a trait that is sexually selected for.
  
  So... fail.

  [inkling]
• 

  avishai

  What do you know "without googling" about the reputed mechanisms for evolution?

  I see people take positions all day long and I rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.

  I read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when I ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, I am often met with silence.

  GB, I like you, I like your posts, but this one is phrased like a true blue arrogant JW.

  Intelligence is'nt defined by being a storehouse of information.
• 

  avishai

  dbl post
• 

  inkling

  Ok. I'll clarify your thinking.

  I'm not quite sure what I experienced after
  this sentence, but "clarity" it was not.

  [inkling]
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Does anyone else wonder what the hell the point of this thread was? If I knew it was a pop quiz, I would have hit the books last night.

  BTS
• 

  Caedes

  Perhaps the all-knowing gb could outline the biological differences between micro and macro evolution?

  I wont hold my breath.
• 

  bohm

  I see people take positions all day long and I rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.
  I read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when I ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, I am often met with silence.

  i dont mean to offend you, but is this topic not about asking a convoluted, vague question, then act condescenting at perfectly valid interpretations of said question? if i had made a topic like this where evolution was replaced with the bible, would it not have seemed strange? did not expect any of us to write *all* we know did you?. i gave you a link with many pieces of very specific data that was so well-referenced that you could go out and find the books/articles or even in many cases email the authors.
  as i read your post now, it seem that you want comments not just about data, but about mechanisms. i wont put it here because i dont have the time, but you can start by reasearching the shitload of emperical work on genetic algorithms which shows that evolution is not 'just' a theory or a fact, its a engineering tool that is being used every day to create usefull things!. for crying out loud, download a cracked version of matlab and you got your own genetic algorithm toolkit right there where you can play around with the mechanisms of evolution (as you put it) and see that it actually has an effect on the performance.

  The argument is not in any way about weather the mechanisms of evolution can produce novel designs, its about if it can produce designs which are as novel as those found in nature. nothing else. and if i had understood your question the way you interpret it to begin with, i would have put replication, mutation, selection as the 3 basic mechanisms, and added "sexual replication" to the list if we were talking about higher animals, because its very important to weed out genetic damage and increase the speed of evolution (yes, the reason humans have sex are at the bottom information theoretical ;-) ).
• 

  gubberningbody

  BTW, I've not googled anything. Everything I've posted comes from the inexaustible font of truth I have within. I simply cannot help but let the waters flow up to impart everlasting life.

  If you're on the side of truth, you listen to my voice.

  In any case, caedes, the difference is not biological, it's a philosophic view that starts out with a conclusionand reasons from there.

  I'll illustrate.

  Knowlege Man - "What provides the novelty to fuel the engines of evolution"

  Circular Natural Philosopher: "Random Mutations operating on organisms which self-replicate."

  Knowlege Man - "What "decides" whether to keep these mutations?"

  Circular Natural Philosopher: "Gee, if the organism survives and replicates more successfully, then it gets to "keep" them."

  Knowlege Man - "Can map out what genetic changes would need be made for a given species to make the transit from indescernible morphological structures and minor genetic changes as seen in genetic drift, or physical isolation of a given group to the gross changes required for the diversity of morphological structures and additional genetic material we see today?"

  Circular Natural Philosopher: "No, but it's got to be the same as the processes we observe operating today."

  Knowlege Man - "Why?"

  Circular Natural Philosopher: "Two reasons, 1) It's true and I know it in my heart and 2) I'm really unfomfortable with saying I don't know - then all those religious nuts who kicked sand in my face will come and do it again!"

  Knowlege Man - "Have you looked into Kung Fu?"