It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
-God: In Futurama Episode: Godfellas
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
WHY, if natural selection is a natural process whereby biological traits become more or less common as a function of better survival and/or reproduction.....why do some organisms evolve and others don't?
A killer product stopped working. Cockroach populations there kept rising. Mystified researchers tested and discarded theory after theory until they finally hit on the explanation: In a remarkably rapid display of evolution at work, many of the cockroaches had lost their sweet tooth, rejecting the corn syrup meant to attract them.
And again, why does evolution and/or natural selection fail for some organisms and succeed for others?
PhotonEffect
That's the whole point, isn't it? None of it is by accident. It's all fairly deliberate and cohesive.
My argument in previous threads supporting design in nature is that it all adheres to 3 simple attributes:
*Form
*Function
*Purpose
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Science doesn't always get it right either, nor is it completely devoid of its own agendas. But don't tell that to a scientist!
Ah yes, (nature's) laws. In all of their complexity. Author unknown...
DNA achieved the ability - through humans- to look back at itself and study itself. And to take that thought a step further. The universe created the DNA that allowed for it to look back and reflect on itself, through the human life form. An introspective universe of sorts...
WHY, if natural selection is a natural process whereby biological traits become more or less common as a function of better survival and/or reproduction.....why do some organisms evolve and others don't?
I'd like to focus on how evolution allows for extinctions if it is life's survival mechanism
Evolution occurs because living organisms mutate.
So Phage....why does evolution take place?
No. Organisms don't adapt to their environment. Organisms mutate.
Organisms adapt to their environment so that they can survive
Maybe with the idea of linking "survival of the fittest" to evolution?
Where am I wrong.
So you fully acknowledge that you just stated "organisms do not adapt" to their environments? whaaaat?
Phage
Yes. That is one part of what I said in response to your claim that, "Organisms adapt to their environment so that they can survive" but it is not all that I said.
Since you took that sentence out of context in favor of reading the whole paragraph, let me try again.
Organism do not "adapt so they can survive." Organisms eat to survive.
Adaptation is a result of mutation. Mutation occurs because of the nature of the reproductive process, not in order to adapt. Some mutations can result in increased likelihood for reproduction and have nothing to do with environment or survival, some can have no effect, and some can have an adverse effect. Mutation, the driver of evolution, is not directed toward survival. Evolution is a process based on reproduction. On mutation. Adaptation is the result. It is not a goal. It is not an end.
edit on 10/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
No. I answered your statement "Organisms adapt to their environment so that they can survive". Organisms do not adapt so that they can survive. They adapt as a result of mutation.
You clearly stated that organisms do not adapt to their environments.
The organism dies.
What happens when the environment doesn't allow the organism to eat?
Instinct is based in genetics, yes. It can also be enhanced by learning but learned behaviors are not inherited. Cats are natural hunters but it sure helps if their mom teaches them how to do it.
Given our example of meerkats....is there any evidence whatsoever that depicts sentinel behavior as a result of a mutation?
Yes. Unless you are a follower of Lamarck. If I lift weights does it mean my son will have large muscles?
Is there any reason to believe adaptation is a result of mutation and not simply an organisms response to a changing environment?
This is true, though mutation generally leads to wider variation.
Say you take mutations out of the equation...you can still have genetic variation within a population...which means natural selection is still at work
Who said they are equal? There are fewer beneficial mutations, like natural immunities to certain diseases, enhanced senses. Then there are ones that are sort of neutral like 6 fingers. Artistic ability, high intelligence, eidetic memory. All genetically based, all subject to mutation. This brings up the interesting question though, how much do these mutations (variations as well) influence the ability for humans to reproduce in the modern world?
If beneficial and deleterious mutations are on equal playing fields, should we not see a similar number of beneficial effects caused by genetic mutation?
Phage
Evolution is a process based on reproduction (better chance for reproduction=more of the same type of organism), on mutation. Adaptation is the result. It is not a goal. It is not an end.
I'd like to hear more about that but I don't see what it has to do with evolution, unless the offspring of the trained animals demonstrated the learned behavior.
I would have to re-read some recent books to cite properly, but I remember reading about experiments where animals (rats etc.) were trained and other lab animals in other parts of the country learned the same abilities even while they were physically separated from the 1st group of animals.
On the contrary. There are bugs which have a mutation which makes them resistant to pesticides. They survive being sprayed and pass that resistance on to their offspring. There was one resistant bug, bugs have lots of offspring, there are a lot of resistant bugs who also pass on their resitance. Works with microbes too.
Another example would be bugs etc. which become resistant against certain pesticides where obviously mutation doesn't play a role either.
Phage
They adapt as a result of mutation.
The organism dies.
Given our example of meerkats....is there any evidence whatsoever that depicts sentinel behavior as a result of a mutation?
Instinct is based in genetics, yes. It can also be enhanced by learning but learned behaviors are not inherited.
Who said they are equal? There are fewer beneficial mutations, like natural immunities to certain diseases, enhanced senses. Then there are ones that are sort of neutral like 6 fingers. Artistic ability, high intelligence, eidetic memory. All genetically based, all subject to mutation. This brings up the interesting question though, how much do these mutations (variations as well) influence the ability for humans to reproduce in the modern world?
edit on 10/23/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
No. I'm saying that without mutation there is not evolution.
So you're claiming organisms cannot adapt unless there is first a genetic mutation? Still ridiculous.....
You said the environment doesn't allow the organism to eat. But that "new way to eat" would be a learned response and not passed on as a physical trait to the organism's offspring. It would not result in evolution.
Or it finds a new way to eat....which would likely be called "adaptation"....
I did not say it was solely a matter of genetics.
I'd like to see the evidence that links sentinel behavior with a particular genetic mutation
You said this:
No one said they were equal...which leads me to my next point of discussion
If beneficial and deleterious mutations are on equal playing fields, should we not see a similar number of beneficial effects caused by genetic mutation?
The majority of mutations are not advantageous to life but evolution is driven by reproduction, not life and death.
it would seem to reason that genetic mutations are a driving force behind death rather than life.