|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 10, 2018 22:30:57 GMT
In a sense all adaptations are "accidental" and "unintentional" according to evolution theory (random variation + natural selection). But here's a case where a somewhat harmful mutation has a beneficial side effect. How sickle-cell carriers fend off malaria |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 10, 2018 23:02:12 GMT
In a sense all adaptations are "accidental" and "unintentional" according to evolution theory (random variation + natural selection). But here's a case where a somewhat harmful mutation has a beneficial side effect. How sickle-cell carriers fend off malariaSure but do you get the distination I am talking about? I guess not. Are you more after the "unintended" or the "multiplicity of benefit" angle here? |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 11, 2018 1:21:35 GMT
I guess not. Are you more after the "unintended" or the "multiplicity of benefit" angle here? Here's a syllogism -Adaptions are reactions to certain things. -Certain adaptions, if any will not occur in reaction to certain things -Therefore it is theoretically possible that an adaption may be a reaction to one thing but is useful in dealing with another thing. On second thought accidental adaptions is a poor term. Indirect beneficial adaptions would be better. edit: Just to clarify I am not talking about future usefulness, that would be an exaptation. But adaptations are not reactions, they are "blind changes" that are successful because they lead to increased fitness of an organism to its environment. See The Blind Watchmaker |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 11, 2018 18:56:45 GMT
I guess not. Are you more after the "unintended" or the "multiplicity of benefit" angle here? Here's a syllogism -Adaptions are reactions to certain things. -Certain adaptions, if any will not occur in reaction to certain things -Therefore it is theoretically possible that an adaption may be a reaction to one thing but is useful in dealing with another thing. On second thought accidental adaptions is a poor term. Indirect beneficial adaptions would be better. edit: Just to clarify I am not talking about future usefulness, that would be an exaptation. There is no biological distinction like that. You can see adaptations as reactions in a physical cause and effect manner, as things do not happen randomly in the sciences, but then that's all adaptations. Or you can see them as happening for no reason in the intentional/purposeful sense, but then that's all adaptations. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 11, 2018 20:29:28 GMT
There is no biological distinction like that. You can see adaptations as reactions in a physical cause and effect manner, as things do not happen randomly in the sciences, but then that's all adaptations. Or you can see them as happening for no reason in the intentional/purposeful sense, but then that's all adaptations. There should be. Would you not agree that the presence of a certain challenge to an organism can cause the development of a trait that not only helps the organism deal with that challenge but also to deal with another challenge it is currently facing that it has no cause and effect relationship like that with? After all we know evolutionary responses are either suboptimal or nonexistent to certain challenges. So it is not theoretically impossible for there to be adaptions like that. It seems to me that if we accept that 1.there is a cause and effect relationship between the presence of challenges and adaptions 2.Responses to challenges are either suboptimal or nonexistent. 3.A trait can help deal with more than one challenges That it is absolutely possible for such an idea to be true. No you are looking at it the wrong way, mutations to not occur due to environmental factors, they occur randomly, those that make a recipient more suited to the environment are more likely to remain. There is no cause and effect relationship between environment and mutation (at least not in the way you are describing, radiation for example can cause mutations, but it is still random) |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 11, 2018 20:33:32 GMT
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
 
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 20:34:39 GMT
See my reply to gadreel. Edit: How does any of that contradict what I have said? You have actually helped my case. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 11, 2018 20:38:25 GMT
See my reply to gadreel. Edit: How does any of that contradict what I have said? You have actually helped my case. Thank you. Yeah, except the first two sentences of my link prove you are clueless. You're welcome. Species don't develop mutations to adapt to changes in an environment. The members of a population that have the mutations most likely to help them survive the changing environment are the ones most likely to survive and reproduce. Again, you're welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 11, 2018 20:45:05 GMT
Yeah, except the first two sentences of my link prove you are clueless. You're welcome. Species don't develop mutations to adapt to changes in an environment. The members of a population that have the mutations most likely to help them survive the changing environment are the ones most likely to survive and reproduce. Again, you're welcome. When did I deny stuff like that happens? You won't find me saying that. It is proven that adaptions CAN result from challenges in the environment. If you read my link you would see that. My own link says that, pay attention. Populations don't magically develop a mutation to specifically deal with environmental changes but if a random mutation just happens to help the population survive and thrive in the new environment then the frequency of that mutation within the population will likely increase. Seriously, you're as lost as Arlon. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 20:53:47 GMT
When did I deny stuff like that happens? You won't find me saying that. It is proven that adaptions CAN result from challenges in the environment. If you read my link you would see that. My own link says that, pay attention. Populations don't magically develop a mutation to specifically deal with environmental changes but if a random mutation just happens to help the population survive and thrive in the new environment then the frequency of that mutation within the population will likely increase. Seriously, you're as lost as Arlon. So you have evidence that organisms develop the same mutations in all environments then? It's certainly bizarre that life even got started and kept going if it is pure, random chance. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 11, 2018 20:55:29 GMT
My own link says that, pay attention. Populations don't magically develop a mutation to specifically deal with environmental changes but if a random mutation just happens to help the population survive and thrive in the new environment then the frequency of that mutation within the population will likely increase. Seriously, you're as lost as Arlon. So you have evidence that organisms develop the same mutations in all environments then? It's certainly bizarre that life even got started and kept going if it is pure, random chance. WTF? Sorry, I can't help you with your literacy problems. Have fun, time waster. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 20:58:26 GMT
So you have evidence that organisms develop the same mutations in all environments then? It's certainly bizarre that life even got started and kept going if it is pure, random chance. WTF? Sorry, I can't help you with your literacy problems. Have fun, time waster. It's straightforward English. If it is just chance then surely there would be evidence that fruitflies have the same new mutations in all environments. Is that too much trouble for you? |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 11, 2018 20:59:57 GMT
Right, because random = happens the same everywhere. Imbecile.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 11, 2018 21:00:55 GMT
No you are looking at it the wrong way, mutations to not occur due to environmental factors, they occur randomly, those that make a recipient more suited to the environment are more likely to remain. There is no cause and effect relationship between environment and mutation (at least not in the way you are describing, radiation for example can cause mutations, but it is still random) If we change an organisms environment it will, within generations adapt to face new challenges posed by that new environment. If there is no cause and effect then how do you explain that? Example = www.nature.com/news/flies-reared-in-the-dark-for-60-years-give-up-their-genetic-secrets-1.19339Have you read anything anyone has written? Mutations happen, they are random. Some are environmentally useful and so will tend to get kept in the gene pool (although they may not) Over time those that are kept mean the species is better adapted to the environment. environment does not cause mutation. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 21:02:37 GMT
Right, because random = happens the same everywhere. Imbecile. Well obviously there are a limited amount of mutations, limited enough that they just so happen to be able to help organisms deal with specific or very specific challenges in their environment. So that is not a stupid assumption |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 11, 2018 21:03:19 GMT
Have you read anything anyone has written? Mutations happen, they are random. Some are environmentally useful and so will tend to get kept in the gene pool (although they may not) Over time those that are kept mean the species is better adapted to the environment. environment does not cause mutation. He got caught not knowing what he's talking about and, as is usual for him, instead of having the integrity to admit he's clueless, he's gone into his time-wasting act again. He'll keep on as long as someone replies to him. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 21:04:02 GMT
Have you read anything anyone has written? Mutations happen, they are random. Some are environmentally useful and so will tend to get kept in the gene pool (although they may not) Over time those that are kept mean the species is better adapted to the environment. environment does not cause mutation. I am not saying you are wrong. I am inquiring now. See my most recent reply to "theoncomingstorm" |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 21:04:33 GMT
Have you read anything anyone has written? Mutations happen, they are random. Some are environmentally useful and so will tend to get kept in the gene pool (although they may not) Over time those that are kept mean the species is better adapted to the environment. environment does not cause mutation. He got caught not knowing what he's talking about and, as is usual for him, instead of having the integrity to admit he's clueless, he's gone into his time-wasting act again. He'll keep on as long as someone replies to him. See my most recent reply to gadreel. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 11, 2018 21:06:21 GMT
Would you not agree that the presence of a certain challenge to an organism can cause the development of a trait . . . It doesn't work that way (when we're talking about biology re genetics). It's not like there's an obstacle, and then the organism makes an effort or decision or anything like that to adapt to the obstacle. The obstacle might simply kill off the species. That's one option. However, there might be differences among individuals that makes it more likely that some will survive the obstacle to reproduce. Those differences will be more likely to be passed on. It's nothing that anything made an effort to change. And there can be mutations that make the species more successful in dealing with the obstacle. Those happen effectively "randomly." Again, there is no effort or decision or anything like that involved. The mutations might have multiple benefits. But it's not like one was a planned benefit and the other was accidental. There is no planning in this. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 21:09:18 GMT
Would you not agree that the presence of a certain challenge to an organism can cause the development of a trait . . . It doesn't work that way (when we're talking about biology re genetics). It's not like there's an obstacle, and then the organism makes an effort or decision or anything like that to adapt to the obstacle. The obstacle might simply kill off the species. That's one option. However, there might be differences among individuals that makes it more likely that some will survive the obstacle to reproduce. Those differences will be more likely to be passed on. It's nothing that anything made an effort to change. And there can be mutations that make the species more successful in dealing with the obstacle. Those happen effectively "randomly." Again, there is no effort or decision or anything like that involved. The mutations might have multiple benefits. But it's not like one was a planned benefit and the other was accidental. There is no planning in this. Wouldn't there be evidence that organisms have the same new mutations in all environments then? I am not saying you are wrong, just enquiring. |
|
