How does evolution actually happen

yes...if someone is going to say 'survival of the fittest' one more time I am going to report them to the ignorance police

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

which one is correct - eng is my second language.

Survival of the athletic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it not the english, it is the concept that is wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Time-released alleles

Faz,

I think what your referring to is a "Operon" a gene or group of genes that a turned on or off by chemical signals. For a further understanding you could check out this link http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/L/LacOperon.html
That’s the most well study operon: the lac operon in E. Coli. Anyways that’s kind of technical site though.

If you have any further question please ask me.

bethere,

wohoho you got some major posting action there! try to use the edit feature more often. About sperm and egg production: Sperm and ova and produced indiscriminately, but the female reproductive track is very picky and filters out only the best sperm and ova... it is also known that these filtering mechanism are variable, what is not known is how the brain controls these mechanisms.

Spuriousmonkey,

Don’t confuse people… survival of the fittest is a very simple single sentence way of explain evolution and at times is easily misinterpreted. A slightly better interpretation would be: Survival of those that are able to reproduce in a particular environment.

 

Ignorance about 'Survival of the Fittest'!

At last someone on this forum that SEES the light. Survival of the fittest(sorry spuriousmonkey) isn't involved in the spontaneous evolution of genes and therefore cells and therefore the creation of new species...at all!!!
If that were the case my friends...we humans (Homo Sapiens) would have been replaced by the more capable species a long time ago! remember...the Neanderthals were far more capable to adapting to their environment than the Cro Magnons!
Most insects species and even tiny bacterium are by far much more adapted 'survival of their fittest' then humans. We should all be a race of super-humans by now if 'survival of the fittest' really had anything to do with evolution of species. It's in the genes, and the chemical signals the DNA and RNA receive to 'unlock' the evolutionary process towards a new species!!!

 

conditioned blindness is same as ignorance

WCF - yeah I should remember that next time I admit I got carried away

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

less posts + more edits = better posts!
Thanks for the info about FRtrack and how it works.

Ok than tell me what is the stimuli for this chemichal signal to be released. Why do organisms need to change. (to adapt to survive or just random chance) Explain yourself and state your (or the)theory...

(Faz thanks for your post)

faz
Please have a MULTIDICIPLINARY aproach to evolution, biology is NOT enough to explain it. Only than you can have a more complete theory. Adapting to nature is just one face of things. What about social structures what about who takes care of the offspring (family structures) and how well the offspring is tought new skills already known by the parents (or newly acquired) - the flow of information thru generations. So many other factors should be taken into account in explaining evolution.

As you said insects are far better in adaptation - but surviving by adaptation is not only about how fast your DNA changes. As you said we cant adapt fast enough biologically and this is an ADVANTAGE becasue it makes us use our brains more and be more intelligent to survive thus rendering us superior to other species becasue we use our intelligance better. (believe it or not we are super humans brain wise -mankinds capacity to process information is growing exponentially!!)

spuriousmonkey - survival of the more responsive to change - like this better??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's a great question, and I'm glad we're fighting about how it happens and how it doesn't.

What are the factors that determine which gamete genes recombine to form a zygote? Completely, random?

 

Re: Ignorance about 'Survival of the Fittest'!

that's not what I meant. I have said it at least twice in other threads what's wrong with survival of the fittest and I am not going to repeat it again. In short..some asshole suggested to replace the term natural selection with survival of the fittest, but the problem is that everybody subsequentely misinterprets survival of the fittest. As can be seen in this quote.

 

Survival of the "fits here best-est"

I think what spuriousmonkey means is that the word "fittest" tends to imply "best" in some objective sense. When what is happening in the real world is just adaptation to a specific set of variables.

An individual or group can be said to be fittest for a particular environment, but not fittest in some grander way.

Many people tend to see evolution as a series of steps toward some goal ( a goal such as human beings). We all have that series of images in our heads: monkeys, to ape men, to modern man carrying his spear. And we like to beable to think linearly like that. But actually Homo sapiens are not the "fittest" beings on the planet. "Fittestness" depends on the situation.

From a heat vent worm's point of view, humans are fragile and weak, not even able to withstand the comfortable environment surrounding the volcanic cracks in the ocean's floor.

 

Ok, enough said on this topic...at least by me.

Dear whoever: Ok, enough said on the topic of what really causes evolution. I always look to nature and nature's God for answers to such far reaching and unknown realms of knowledge and discovery. And nature's God has suggested as always that I simply look to His creation. "What creation and what species, I questioned?" "Why my child, search for your answer in the lowly caterpillar."
Ok, caterpillar: Now what? The caterpillar is an insect that under goes what is commonly called 'metamorphosis'. It can change in a matter of a few short months into a completely different looking creature! It is the same species obcourse, but look how different it has become in shape, size and appearance. Why it even has the ability to fly now!! "Gee...is that the answer I wondered?" Evolution is nothing more than a kindof long drawn out version of metamorphosis...like some dinosaurs actually developing feathers in place of their scales! And did this metamorophic change actually occur in a very short time(months or years) or was it something that took thousands of years? Hmmmm, ,maybe this is why there are so many 'gaps' or 'missing links' in the fossil record. The evolutionary change from one species into a completely different looking one, and different family, took place too rapidly to leave a 'trail' of gradual changes.
Then I think Steven Gould has already been down this road of thinking with his 'Punctuated Equalibrium' theory. It's still in the genes, in the genes....

 

Have mercy on my soul. I have attention deficit dissorder. I promise; you can condense your posts.

 

Faz,

I disagree with your time line of evolution... the speed is dependent on the level of advantage a trait has the reproductive rate of the organism. As for fossil record gap that is due to the fact that only 1 out of 6000 species has over the last 300 million years, been fossilized and found. So its very unlikely we will ever fill the gaps in the fossil record.

 

Dear FAZ,

I find your explanation very interesting. Can you supply some links about this line thought (I want to read further on this). Is this already a counter argument (or a co-existing one).

Do you look at the 9 months a fetus spends as a metamorphosis similar to the caterpilars.

What do you imply when you say it is all in the genes do you mean it is premapped just wiaiting to happen.

 

FAZ and everyone, the thread topic is "How does evolution actually happen". It assumes that evolution does happen.

The phrasing cleverly disguises its message: That which is observable is not evolution. It is something different.

I think Faz's statement that "Evolution is nothing more than a kind of long drawn out version of metamorphosis" doesn't support this thread.

If this is an evolution/creation debate, can we please take it to another thread where we can get off on providing supporting arguments?

 

The post belongs here because evolution can't have happened. The Mathamatical Laws of Probibly make it an IMPOSSIBLILTY.

The 9 months a fetus spends does is not similar to the metamorphosis of caterpilarsexcept if one has a vivid imagination.

I never said it is all in the genes. This we know because identical twins have exact same genes but are two very different people although they look alike.

 

Deist27,

Your talking about abiogenesis, not evolution! Evolution only states how life changes over time, not how life started!

 

If there is not "abiogenesis", there can be no evolution! Evolution states not only how life changes over time, but also that it evolves, that could be discribed as abiogenesis on a regular basis new species comming into existance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Abiogenesis: how life formed from pre-biotic molecules.

Evolution: "Reproducing elements will change in characteristics over time due to environmental stimulus that determines the survivability of deferent traits."

I don't see a conflict with these two?

 

It seems he's trying to argue that abiogenesis there would be no DNA for the process evolution to work with. However, there is no reason to link the two in a discussion as they appear too be two separate issues.
1) Where did the first 'organism' come from
2) How did it diversify

This thread was aimed at #2, and the first should be argued elsewhere.

However the statement "The Mathamatical Laws of Probibly make it an IMPOSSIBLILTY" gives me the feeling that a rhetoric hound is in our midst. Especially since 'probibly' would not prove anything as being impossible, just unlikely.