Darwinism and a book by David Berlinsky

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Dealers always give the first taste for free.

Oh, please. Yep, someone's hooked!

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

It's called sickle cell anemia disease. I didn't name it, and until recently having it meant having a short life.

The people that named it must be conclusion jumpers too.

Yes, having both parents being carriers and inheriting both recessive genes leads to the condition known as sickle cell anemia disease. Yet those parents who are carriers of the gene, but in the recessive form have a far superior immune response to malaria. In the tropics this is an advantage, yet some offspring will get both recessive genes from their parents and become sick. Since this gene is the recessive version it there is a smaller likelihood of being born with it as the dominant, 1 in 4 chances as per high school biology.

From an evolutionary standpoint your offspring are more likely to survive in environments where malaria is present if you are a carrier of this gene then if you are not.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by whammy

That was the general consensus when I learned about evolution a few years ago in university. Mutations/varied physical traits exist BEFORE the environment selects for them. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, but that's what we were taught.

Ahh yes, I see what you're saying. The mutation most likely exists before the environment changes, and if a successful adaptation then it will rise to dominance if the environment suits it. Got ya. Just had to put it straight in my head again.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

It's called sickle cell anemia disease. I didn't name it, and until recently having it meant having a short life.

The people that named it must be conclusion jumpers too.

It's a disease in New York City. It is a life-saving advantage for carriers of the gene in equatorial Africa.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by whammy

Science does not require experimentation. Observations are just as good, as long as reasonable controls can be assumed. The fossil record is truly an amazing thing constantly assaulted by creationists as 'incomplete' and 'missing important steps'. That is just plain ignorance.

Ok, we've established our ignorance. Observation, is just that. That we could come to differing conclusions only highlights it.

Science does require provability, otherwise it's just looking around offering unsubstantiated opinion.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Ok, we've established our ignorance. Observation, is just that. That we could come to differing conclusions only highlights it.

Science does require provability, otherwise it's just looking around offering unsubstantiated opinion.

That's where logic comes into play.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Ahh yes, I see what you're saying. The mutation most likely exists before the environment changes, and if a successful adaptation then it will rise to dominance if the environment suits it. Got ya. Just had to put it straight in my head again.

The peppered moth is a classic example. The black form was based on a rare mutation. There were very few black moths historically. When industrialization hit their habitat, the normally pale tree trunks became covered in soot. The pale moths were easy prey and in a short time the dark form with its camouflage became dominant in most industrialized areas. The environment changed to suit the darker form. The pale form remained dominant in in polluted woodlands.

[markg]

Thanks to everyone for keeping it on track and being respectful to one another

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Cancer has nothing to do with adaptive behavior .blind cave frogs have eyes.those eyes have lost the ability to detect light. This shows they are relatively new at living in caves. How you ask ? The fish in the same cave have lost eyes altogether . Yet catfish and frogs in the same river system retain eyes out side of the cave system . both thru adaptation,succeed in a specific area that the other would perish . Time ... billions of years allow life to overcome all obstacles that do not extinguish all life. What you guys gona do when we find life on the next planet found light years away . Lol .

The blindness is not new information, and does not help them survive. That their eyes have become redundant does not show any improvement, just the bar for reproduction has been lowered.

This is usually seen about 3am on weekends in bars around the country.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Do you know what sickle cell is and what it does? Looks to me like you're just jumping to conclusions here.

No he doesnt.

Originally Posted by sjemac

Exactly. Sometimes simplicity enhances survivability. In that case "devolution" would be a good thing.

Yes, but it's not devolution, it is still evolution. It is best to understand the term evolution as change, rather than improvement/enhance/increase/complexity etc

Originally Posted by whammy

Common misconception. It's not life changing to it's environment, it's more the environment SELECTING for a PRE-EXISTING trait.

yes

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

I had always had this picture of organisms moving into new environments and adapting to survive there, or current environments changing and life adapting to survive with those changes. You're telling me it's the other way around then.

This is the LaMarckian theory. Species adapt as a population over time, individual organisms can not hope to do anything but cope.

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Where do you get that? If that is your stance, you neither agree nor disagree that we started off more advanced than we are now. So?

I think you missed the point.

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

It's called sickle cell anemia disease. I didn't name it, and until recently having it meant having a short life.

The people that named it must be conclusion jumpers too.

The chicken has left the coop.

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Ok, we've established our ignorance. Observation, is just that. That we could come to differing conclusions only highlights it.

Science does require provability, otherwise it's just looking around offering unsubstantiated opinion.

You can only ever provide support whether that be statistical or other. Some things are much more easily supported than others. I would be cautious to use the word prove.

GlowBall WarMing

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Ok, we've established our ignorance. Observation, is just that. That we could come to differing conclusions only highlights it.

Science does require provability, otherwise it's just looking around offering unsubstantiated opinion.

This is where you lack a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Laws can be proven. Scientific theories cannot be proven. They can only be disproven.

If they are disproven, then the theory is not simply jettisoned but it is altered to accommodate the new evidence. Find some evidence to indicate that a giant alien space bat is controlling the process of speciation and evolution and scientists will gladly incorporate that into their existing theories.

The theory of Darwinian evolution has experienced many adaptations and additions over the generations. Its fundamental principles have never been seriously threatened however.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by sjemac

The peppered moth is a classic example. The black form was based on a rare mutation. There were very few black moths historically. When industrialization hit their habitat, the normally pale tree trunks became covered in soot. The pale moths were easy prey and in a short time the dark form with its camouflage became dominant in most industrialized areas. The environment changed to suit the darker form. The pale form remained dominant in in polluted woodlands.

So, you are saying that they already had the info?

Exactly!

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by sjemac

The peppered moth is a classic example. The black form was based on a rare mutation. There were very few black moths historically. When industrialization hit their habitat, the normally pale tree trunks became covered in soot. The pale moths were easy prey and in a short time the dark form with its camouflage became dominant in most industrialized areas. The environment changed to suit the darker form. The pale form remained dominant in in polluted woodlands.

Where are Hardy and Weinberg when you need them?

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

No he doesnt.



Yes, but it's not devolution, it is still evolution. It is best to understand the term evolution as change, rather than improvement/enhance/increase/complexity etc



yes



This is the LaMarckian theory. Species adapt as a population over time, individual organisms can not hope to do anything but cope.



I think you missed the point.



The chicken has left the coop.



You can only ever provide support whether that be statistical or other. Some things are much more easily supported than others. I would be cautious to use the word prove.

GlowBall WarMing

Attack, and evade!

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by sjemac

The peppered moth is a classic example. The black form was based on a rare mutation. There were very few black moths historically. When industrialization hit their habitat, the normally pale tree trunks became covered in soot. The pale moths were easy prey and in a short time the dark form with its camouflage became dominant in most industrialized areas. The environment changed to suit the darker form. The pale form remained dominant in in polluted woodlands.

I remembered something about them from school as a kid, watched some nat geo or pbs thing on evolution and they were mentioned.

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

The blindness is not new information, and does not help them survive. That their eyes have become redundant does not show any improvement, just the bar for reproduction has been lowered.

This is usually seen about 3am on weekends in bars around the country.

Actually this is a good example of what evolution actually is. Frogs with poor eyesight are adapted to live in areas with poor light and more likely to survive. The chain of selection for that trait, and others will lead to less and less need or use of eyes and connecting organs and components and would be bred out. Meanwhile in the same system frogs with good eyesight would do poorly in low light environs and better where there sight gives me an advantage and live in the environment more suited to its traits.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

So, you are saying that they already had the info?

Exactly!

Yes, evolution is not a response to changing environment. Changing environment selects for the adaptations best able to survive. In a neutral situation both forms can exist. If the environment changes however then one form can be better able to survive -- altering the genome of the species -- leading to evolution. You just got the process backwards. The theory still holds.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Where are Hardy and Weinberg when you need them?

Mind your p's and q's.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

So, you are saying that they already had the info?

Exactly!

No. the moth existed with a light form being dominant till mankind changed the environment. After the environment changed the dark form became dominant. If mankind changes his way(ie less soot in the air) the light form could become doinant again. are you suggesting the moth had prior knowledge.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by sjemac

The peppered moth is a classic example. The black form was based on a rare mutation. There were very few black moths historically. When industrialization hit their habitat, the normally pale tree trunks became covered in soot. The pale moths were easy prey and in a short time the dark form with its camouflage became dominant in most industrialized areas. The environment changed to suit the darker form. The pale form remained dominant in in polluted woodlands.

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

So, you are saying that they already had the info?

Exactly!

some did.

There were always a few black moths kicking around in that population. There were also white moths that carried the genes for darkness but didn't express them. There were also white moths which didnt have genes for darkness.

The change in environment created a selection pressure against light colour. light coloured moths were eaten and this allowed the genes for darkness to proliferate in the population.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

some did.

There were always a few black moths kicking around in that population. There were also white moths that carried the genes for darkness but didn't express them. There were also white moths which didnt have genes for darkness.

The change in environment created a selection pressure against light colour. light coloured moths were eaten and this allowed the genes for darkness to proliferate in the population.

This is what happened. Why make a simple incident into a complex problem?

Oh Dear: There is a serious problem in the Biology 20 program in Alberta.

All one has to do is read the above posts.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

I remembered something about them from school as a kid, watched some nat geo or pbs thing on evolution and they were mentioned.



Actually this is a good example of what evolution actually is. Frogs with poor eyesight are adapted to live in areas with poor light and more likely to survive. The chain of selection for that trait, and others will lead to less and less need or use of eyes and connecting organs and components and would be bred out. Meanwhile in the same system frogs with good eyesight would do poorly in low light environs and better where there sight gives me an advantage and live in the environment more suited to its traits.

Yep. the frogs have it .

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by sjemac

This is where you lack a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Laws can be proven. Scientific theories cannot be proven. They can only be disproven.

If they are disproven, then the theory is not simply jettisoned but it is altered to accommodate the new evidence. Find some evidence to indicate that a giant alien space bat is controlling the process of speciation and evolution and scientists will gladly incorporate that into their existing theories.

The theory of Darwinian evolution has experienced many adaptations and additions over the generations. Its fundamental principles have never been seriously threatened however.

No, I understand perfectly.

And you are absolutely right, except for the assertion that it the evolution theory has never been seriously threatened. IMO. Unfortunately, too much passing off unproven theory as fact .

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

No. the moth existed with a light form being dominant till mankind changed the environment. After the environment changed the dark form became dominant. If mankind changes his way(ie less soot in the air) the light form could become doinant again. are you suggesting the moth had prior knowledge.

both forms co-existed at the same time. When man changed the environment, the recessive form became dominant in industrialized areas as the dark variant blended in with the soot covered trees better then the white variant. Out in the country the white form is still dominant, and if a white and dark bred the most likely outcome would be all white offspring. In areas of pollution the black survives and the recessive gene dominates the gene pool, but doesn't become the dominant gene.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

I remembered something about them from school as a kid, watched some nat geo or pbs thing on evolution and they were mentioned.



Actually this is a good example of what evolution actually is. Frogs with poor eyesight are adapted to live in areas with poor light and more likely to survive. The chain of selection for that trait, and others will lead to less and less need or use of eyes and connecting organs and components and would be bred out. Meanwhile in the same system frogs with good eyesight would do poorly in low light environs and better where there sight gives me an advantage and live in the environment more suited to its traits.

This is still LaMarckian.

Frogs living in caves or somewhere there is no light have no selection for good eyesight.

This allows genes which are detrimental to good eyesight to persist.

Pigmentation which is important to protect from UV radiation in normal environments is affected in a similar manner as eyesight in cave dwelling organisms.

Without a selection for healthy pigmentation, genes for poor pigmentation or mutations for albinism can persist.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

This is still LaMarckian.

Frogs living in caves or somewhere there is no light have no selection for good eyesight.

This allows genes which are detrimental to good eyesight to persist.

Pigmentation which is important to protect from UV radiation in normal environments is affected in a similar manner as eyesight in cave dwelling organisms.

Without a selection for healthy pigmentation, genes for poor pigmentation or mutations for albinism can persist.

Well, I'll be. We agree. At least on this.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

both forms co-existed at the same time. When man changed the environment, the recessive form became dominant in industrialized areas as the dark variant blended in with the soot covered trees better then the white variant. Out in the country the white form is still dominant, and if a white and dark bred the most likely outcome would be all white offspring. In areas of pollution the black survives and the recessive gene dominates the gene pool, but doesn't become the dominant gene.

try using the terms population and frequency.

"dominates the gene pool" and "dominant gene" will confuse people

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

No, I understand perfectly.

And you are absolutely right, except for the assertion that it the evolution theory has never been seriously threatened. IMO. Unfortunately, too much passing off unproven theory as fact .

No you don't. You are still trying to use the words proven with theory. It is still technically a theory that the earth revolves around the sun.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by sjemac

No you don't. You are still trying to use the words proven with theory. It is still technically a theory that the earth revolves around the sun.

There is a lot of support for that theory

Just don't tell Harper.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

This is still LaMarckian.

Frogs living in caves or somewhere there is no light have no selection for good eyesight.

This allows genes which are detrimental to good eyesight to persist.

Pigmentation which is important to protect from UV radiation in normal environments is affected in a similar manner as eyesight in cave dwelling organisms.

Without a selection for healthy pigmentation, genes for poor pigmentation or mutations for albinism can persist.

Does not exclude the possibility of such an occurrence from taking place. Mutations could occur near environmental transition areas that lead to one population dividing to live on either side, and in the middle. Evolution via expansion of territorial range.

Me thinks I have some reading to do on the subject either way.

[BeeGuy]

Order a text off amazon, I'm sure you would enjoy it.

Although not all of it is up to date, I really enjoyed most of Stephen J Goulds books of essays on natural history, most of which discuss things from an evolutionary perspective. "Full House" is another good one of his.

Selfish Gene by Dawkins is probably the best up to date popular book on evolution. Of course, it has a gene-centric focus, as opposed to species or population.