Ask me any questions you have about evolution

reply to post by nophun


Thank you for your time to reply. Your links provide new insight to me. evolutionary stasis interrupted by sudden burst of rapid changes is fascinating. However, It's rather disappointing that:

1. there is a great deal of uncertainty about what exactly this means and whether it is true or not (hence the scare quotes). - Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson, Cornell University Press 1992

2. merely addresses the pattern of evolution and is not tied to any one mode of speciation.

3. Stephen Gould deny 'radical speciation scaled into geological time', rather it's just a theory about speciation and its deployment in the fossil record.

4. Drastic mutation has negative effect.

the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles

Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005) Professor of Zoology at Harvard University






[edit on 6-9-2010 by EasternShadow]

reply to post by Nosred

This is indeed a question of evolution, being that man consists of both matter and spirit.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Nosred

 

I have a question. Does human spirit evolve?

YES...

How so? Please expand.

what is allowing evolution to take place. What causes the shift from disorder to order. Evolution is a process and that process requires movement.
Science is a belief system not unlike religion. Its puts your view of the universe in a box.
Cannot you not see the limitations of science, when the one thing science cannot prove is the existence of consciousness.

The only thing you truly know to exist.... your consciousness. Science cannot prove
Does that not tell you something.

reply to post by purplemer


Hi purplemer,

Thank you for summing it up in a nutshell.Good Job

Originally posted by EasternShadow
reply to post by nophun

 

Thank you for your time to reply. Your links provide new insight to me. evolutionary stasis interrupted by sudden burst of rapid changes is fascinating. However, It's rather disappointing that:

1. there is a great deal of uncertainty about what exactly this means and whether it is true or not (hence the scare quotes). - Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson, Cornell University Press 1992

2. merely addresses the pattern of evolution and is not tied to any one mode of speciation.

3. Stephen Gould deny 'radical speciation scaled into geological time', rather it's just a theory about speciation and its deployment in the fossil record.

4. Drastic mutation has negative effect.

the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles

Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005) Professor of Zoology at Harvard University

What is your point ? There is a point to your post right ? What are you trying to say ? In your own words please.

Thanks

p.s
en.wikipedia.org...
(I recommend you check out the common misconceptions section)

reply to post by nophun


The point is

1. punctuated equilibrium model is highly likely to cause speciation to extinct rather than creating new species.
2. punctuated equilibrium model is trying to explain the absent of gradual transition on fossil record by using speciation theory but fail to answer the mechanism.
3. punctuated equilibrium model is more likely answer to creation evidence instead of evolution.
4. Stephan Gould deny radical rapid changes yet admit the process is too fast to show on fossil record. In simple word, fossil tells the story of evolution that species just pop out of nowhere.
5. punctuated equilibrium model contradict with Darwin's slow gradualism even though Stephen Gould try to justify it. ( Refer to point 4 ).
6. My previous question remain unsatisfactory answered.

Thanks you.

PS: I have read en.wikipedia.org... before I post my concern for problem with Punctuated Equilibrium. The misconception's answered by your link is being criticized as shown in the same link. Every time Gould is being criticized he retreat to traditional neo-Darwin position, according to Dennet. My previous link demonstrate the nature of such uncertainty. I've search why, instead finding Richard Dawkins himself been criticized heavily. You could try google for Richard Dawkins. I purposely left Dawkins out because my focus is Stephan Gould's claim and his controversial punctuated equilibrium.


EDIT : howstuffworks.com teach me the basic of evolution and point 3 holes. I only address one of the holes here. Punctuated equilibrium trying to patch that hole but end up confused, generating more questions than answer and lastly doubtful.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by EasternShadow]

I have a question about evolution. I was thinking: say a creature is born with a mutation, later that creature produces offspring with a member of the original species. Because only half of the Alleles of the offspring are from the mutated species does this mean the traits of the new mutated species might not be carried on due to genetic drift? (or for whatever reason - I just recently read a little about genetic drift so I only have the gist of it) Basically my point is, wouldn't the fact that the traits of offspring are somewhat variable, that the evolution of a new species becomes even more difficult? I have a feeling the answer is no as I'd imagine genetic drift is rare and even if the first set of offspring doesn't have the new trait(s) they could still be 'dormant' within their DNA so that later generations could still obtain them. But honestly I really don't know lol - this is all a thought experiment.

reply to post by Nosred


Please Explain to me in Detail how a Microscopic Single Cell Organism could Evolve over Time into a Self Aware Intelligent Bipedal Humanoid .

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


So you want the complete phylogenetic tree of humanity from our first ancestor?
Or do you simply want a description of the mechanism that allows for it?


Aside from the fact that you're asking for a ridiculous post-graduate level answer from a person on a conspiracy theory website, you're not even providing an exact framework of what you want.

What do you mean by the question?

reply to post by frameses


Well, some mutations are more likely to be passed on then others. It depends. I'm not an expert on genetics, but there's also the factor of which species you're talking about.

Is it a litter species? That increases the chances significantly.
Is it a typically single-offspring per reproduction species? That decreases the chances a bit, but it depends on how many times the species reproduces.

Basically, a species like mice would evolve quite a bit faster than humans.

But in general, sexual reproduction does actually slow down the speed of evolutionary change due to the factor you mentioned.

Hope that answers your question.

reply to post by Nosred


Lets start with a simple one then ok, where did the increase in information come from at a genetic level, please explain this.

reply to post by jelleepie


From the environment. Different random mutations and changes randomly "sample" the solution space, and environment through natural selection provides feedback on whether these changes are useful to adaptation, neutral or detrimental. Thus the information (in entropic or informatic sense) that makes life more adapted (and many times also more complex) comes from the surrounding environment.

Originally posted by jelleepie
reply to post by Nosred

 

Lets start with a simple one then ok, where did the increase in information come from at a genetic level, please explain this.

What do you mean by an 'increase in information'?

And at which point?

But I think Maslo answered your question quite thoroughly.

reply to post by Nosred


Well, technically that's how evolution says the very first organism(s) came about isn't it? They just came out of nothingness?

reply to post by JenRae93


Evolution speaks nothing about the origins of life. It speaks solely about biodiversity, the diversity of life.

The naturalistic origin of life is dealt with by abiogenesis, which is an entirely separate field of study that deals with the origin of life and not biodiversity.

They just came out of nothingness?

Abiogenesis actually says that life arose from carbon-based molecules that organized from various levels and arranged themselves into life through purely natural processes.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


so where did the carbon based molecules come from?

reply to post by JenRae93


This is now a question of chemistry rather than evolution.

The carbon-based molecules came from chemical reactions with carbon atoms.

The carbon atoms came from stellar fusion.

Stellar fusion occurred because stars formed due to the laws of physics and a bunch of hydrogen lumping together.

The hydrogen came about because of the Big Bang.

And the Big Bang...happened...that's what we know right now. Some say that the Big Bang is actually a consequence of the laws of physics. Science doesn't have a concrete answer on that, but its working on it.

And none of the above has anything to do with evolution

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Well, it does have to do with the theory of evolution, in that it's the only origin theory that relies in the "big bang" as an explanation for how the hydrogen got here

Originally posted by JenRae93
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Well, it does have to do with the theory of evolution, in that it's the only origin theory that relies in the "big bang" as an explanation for how the hydrogen got here

In order to learn to sew, do you have to know where the water came from that irrigated the cotton fields?