|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 11, 2018 21:17:16 GMT
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. ? I don't really get what you're asking. Genetics are more complex than it simply being a case of "parent has mutation x, so offspring, all offspring from that point on, will have mutation x." The mutation might get passed on, it might not. It might be passed on to some offspring and not others. Offspring aren't an exact copy of the parents' genetics, especially in species that reproduce sexually. In that case, offspring have a combo of the parents' genetic material, where the combos happen in complex ways. On top of that, there will be "mistakes" as well, or new mutations. I forgot in the earlier post to address this by the way: "there is a cause and effect relationship between the presence of challenges and adaptions" There isn't a cause and effect relationship (not between the environmental challenge and the mutation). That's not how it works. And again, the species might simply die out. That happens all the time. There have been tons of extinctions of species. Per some estimates, 24 species currently go extinct per day. That's believed to be a much higher rate than historical rates, but even if it were 24 per year, or 24 per ten years or whatever, that's still a lot. So species do not evolve just because they're presented with challenges that will affect their ability to produce offspring. The species that experience mutations that enable them to survive in the face of challenges are akin to species that hit the lottery. And like the lottery, it's random (that is, epistemically random; it's not ontologically random)
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 11, 2018 21:24:08 GMT
It is proven that adaptions CAN result from challenges in the environment. If you read my link you would see that. No it doesn't. Your link says that in the population of fruit flies that spent 1500 generations in the dark, there were traits present that helped the flies live in the dark. It does not say that the mutations occurred because it was dark. Saying that the mutations were caused by the darkness makes as much sense as saying that eating ice cream causes sun burns. Or that buying sun lotion will make temperatures rise.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 21:26:03 GMT
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. ? I don't really get what you're asking. Genetics are more complex than it simply being a case of "parent has mutation x, so offspring, all offspring from that point on, will have mutation x." The mutation might get passed on, it might not. It might be passed on to some offspring and not others. Offspring aren't an exact copy of the parents' genetics, especially in species that reproduce sexually. In that case, offspring have a combo of the parents' genetic material, where the combos happen in complex ways. On top of that, there will be "mistakes" as well, or new mutations. I forgot in the earlier post to address this by the way: "there is a cause and effect relationship between the presence of challenges and adaptions" There isn't a cause and effect relationship (not between the environmental challenge and the mutation). That's not how it works. And again, the species might simply die out. That happens all the time. There have been tons of extinctions of species. Per some estimates, 24 species currently go extinct per day. That's believed to be a much higher rate than historical rates, but even if it were 24 per year, or 24 per ten years or whatever, that's still a lot. So species do not evolve just because they're presented with challenges that will affect their ability to produce offspring. The species that experience mutations that enable them to survive in the face of challenges are akin to species that hit the lottery. And like the lottery, it's random (that is, epistemically random; it's not ontologically random) Yeah I get all that. I mean is there evidence fruit flies living in polar opposite areas like New York and Saudi Arabia have the same new mutations. I suppose a poor but useful analogy would be asking if you would still get the same sort of results if you got one person to throw a dice 10 times and then another person to do the same.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 21:26:28 GMT
It is proven that adaptions CAN result from challenges in the environment. If you read my link you would see that. No it doesn't. Your link says that in the population of fruit flies that spent 1500 generations in the dark, there were traits present that helped the flies live in the dark. It does not say that the mutations occurred because it was dark. Saying that the mutations were caused by the darkness makes as much sense as saying that eating ice cream causes sun burns. Or that buying sun lotion will make temperatures rise. Yeah I know. I'm an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 11, 2018 21:31:21 GMT
I mean is there evidence fruit flies living in polar opposite areas like New York and Saudi Arabia have the same new mutations. No there isn't. Mutations are random. I suppose a poor but useful analogy would be asking if you would still get the same sort of results if you got one person to throw a dice 10 times and then another one. The odds of two people throwing a dice 10 times and getting exactly the same result are (1/6)^10. Pretty low.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 11, 2018 21:32:15 GMT
Yeah I know. I'm an idiot. I don't disagree.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 21:36:10 GMT
I mean is there evidence fruit flies living in polar opposite areas like New York and Saudi Arabia have the same new mutations. No there isn't. Mutations are random. I suppose a poor but useful analogy would be asking if you would still get the same sort of results if you got one person to throw a dice 10 times and then another one. The odds of two people throwing a dice 10 times and getting exactly the same result are (1/6)^10. Pretty low. "No, there isn't mutations are random" Ok Well obviously they must have some mutations in common. It would be quite bizarre that it just so happened to be the case that the one group of fruit flies that can adapt to survive in the dark were the ones picked for the experiment I linked. You must be wrong about that. Regarding dices I never said anything about the exact same results.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 11, 2018 21:50:23 GMT
No there isn't. Mutations are random. The odds of two people throwing a dice 10 times and getting exactly the same result are (1/6)^10. Pretty low. "No, there isn't mutations are random" Ok Well obviously they must have some mutations in common. It would be quite bizarre that it just so happened to be the case that the one group of fruit flies that can adapt to survive in the dark were the ones picked for the experiment I linked. All mutations are random, and some mutations turn out to be benificial for surviving in the dark. Mutations that are beneficial for surviving in the dark may also occur in places with lots of light; but the dark-adapted fruitflies will have more trouble passing their genes there than fruitflies well adapted to the light.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 11, 2018 21:58:24 GMT
"No, there isn't mutations are random" Ok Well obviously they must have some mutations in common. It would be quite bizarre that it just so happened to be the case that the one group of fruit flies that can adapt to survive in the dark were the ones picked for the experiment I linked. All mutations are random, and some mutations turn out to be benificial for surviving in the dark. Mutations that are beneficial for surviving in the dark may also occur in places with lots of light; but the dark-adapted fruitflies will have more trouble passing their genes there than fruitflies well adapted to the light. I never said otherwise. Did you even understand what I was saying?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 11, 2018 21:59:08 GMT
? I don't really get what you're asking. Genetics are more complex than it simply being a case of "parent has mutation x, so offspring, all offspring from that point on, will have mutation x." The mutation might get passed on, it might not. It might be passed on to some offspring and not others. Offspring aren't an exact copy of the parents' genetics, especially in species that reproduce sexually. In that case, offspring have a combo of the parents' genetic material, where the combos happen in complex ways. On top of that, there will be "mistakes" as well, or new mutations. I forgot in the earlier post to address this by the way: "there is a cause and effect relationship between the presence of challenges and adaptions" There isn't a cause and effect relationship (not between the environmental challenge and the mutation). That's not how it works. And again, the species might simply die out. That happens all the time. There have been tons of extinctions of species. Per some estimates, 24 species currently go extinct per day. That's believed to be a much higher rate than historical rates, but even if it were 24 per year, or 24 per ten years or whatever, that's still a lot. So species do not evolve just because they're presented with challenges that will affect their ability to produce offspring. The species that experience mutations that enable them to survive in the face of challenges are akin to species that hit the lottery. And like the lottery, it's random (that is, epistemically random; it's not ontologically random) Yeah I get all that. I mean is there evidence fruit flies living in polar opposite areas like New York and Saudi Arabia have the same new mutations. I suppose a poor but useful analogy would be asking if you would still get the same sort of results if you got one person to throw a dice 10 times and then another person to do the same. Right. The same mutation can show up in different places simply because it's effectively random.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 11, 2018 22:03:08 GMT
I never said otherwise. Did you even understand what I was saying? Did you? theoncomingstorm might have a point. "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 22:09:59 GMT
I never said otherwise. Did you even understand what I was saying? Did you? theoncomingstorm might have a point. "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." Lol I literally just refered to myself as an idiot and blanked my OP. I am starting to think you are a complete and utter bafoon
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 12, 2018 0:17:27 GMT
Did you? theoncomingstorm might have a point. "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." Lol I literally just refered to myself as an idiot and blanked my OP. I am starting to think you are a complete and utter bafoon I must point out that you are the one that is coming across as a complete 'bufoon' in this.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jan 12, 2018 10:04:40 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 malariaYou've got it the wrong way round. It's a beneficial mutation when it's heterozygous (you carry one allele with it), that's why it persists in the population. The 'unintended' part is that it's disease causing if you're unfortunate enough to be homozygous
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jan 12, 2018 10:12:55 GMT
No there isn't. Mutations are random. The odds of two people throwing a dice 10 times and getting exactly the same result are (1/6)^10. Pretty low. "No, there isn't mutations are random" Ok Well obviously they must have some mutations in common. It would be quite bizarre that it just so happened to be the case that the one group of fruit flies that can adapt to survive in the dark were the ones picked for the experiment I linked. You must be wrong about that. Regarding dices I never said anything about the exact same results. Mutations are random but environmental stress can increase the mutation rate in Bacteria and Plants (not sure about animals). There's a scientist called James Shapiro who's written books about how genomes evolve , I think he calls it Natural Genetic Engineering. The central thesis is that genome evolution is induced by environmental stress.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 12, 2018 16:30:52 GMT
"No, there isn't mutations are random" Ok Well obviously they must have some mutations in common. It would be quite bizarre that it just so happened to be the case that the one group of fruit flies that can adapt to survive in the dark were the ones picked for the experiment I linked. You must be wrong about that. Regarding dices I never said anything about the exact same results. Mutations are random but environmental stress can increase the mutation rate in Bacteria and Plants (not sure about animals). There's a scientist called James Shapiro who's written books about how genomes evolve , I think he calls it Natural Genetic Engineering. The central thesis is that genome evolution is induced by environmental stress. It seems unlikely that the mutation rate would actually increase. What I suspect is happening is that the environmental stress is increasing the selection pressure, making the "status quo" organisms get lower survivability scores than they would in more normal times, and thus increasing the genetic divergence rate. In risky times, risk taking (risky adaptations) pays off better than in normal times.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jan 12, 2018 17:50:12 GMT
Mutations are random but environmental stress can increase the mutation rate in Bacteria and Plants (not sure about animals). There's a scientist called James Shapiro who's written books about how genomes evolve , I think he calls it Natural Genetic Engineering. The central thesis is that genome evolution is induced by environmental stress. It seems unlikely that the mutation rate would actually increase. . Why? It's been know for a long time that the mutation rate in Bacteria increases with environmental stress, there are mechanisms triggered by stress. For instance error prone sigma factors (enzymes for DNA replication) are preferentially used which increase point mutations etc. In plants transposons (jumping genes) are activated by environmental stress and increase the mutation rate. Shapiro's theories aren't really that controversial except when creationists think he's talking about intelligent design.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jan 12, 2018 17:55:47 GMT
Hmmmm.... Erin-related username, completely uninformed stance, a tendency to slog forward anyway....
How you feel about age of consent?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 12, 2018 17:58:36 GMT
Lol I literally just refered to myself as an idiot and blanked my OP. I am starting to think you are a complete and utter bafoon I must point out that you are the one that is coming across as a complete 'bufoon' in this. I'm not the one who can't even grasp what the other is saying.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 12, 2018 18:00:20 GMT
Hmmmm.... Erin-related username, completely uninformed stance, a tendency to slog forward anyway.... How you feel about age of consent? Whatever you say baldie
|
|