What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
98 Comments
- inactive, on 11/08/2008, -2/+20WRONG.
Mutations are mostly NEUTRAL. Not detrimental.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html - d2002, on 11/08/2008, -3/+18Science. It works!
- duhduhduh, on 11/08/2008, -2/+14I think they are saying that it has happened and does happen regularly.
- DetpackJump, on 11/08/2008, -3/+15Oh look, someone gets the science completely wrong. Checks profile... yup, religious republican. It's so sad to see a once great party infected with such ignorance.
- jholden42, on 11/08/2008, -1/+12Buried for anthropomorphizing a non-alive, non-conscious, non-directed process.
- Zervaman, on 11/08/2008, -2/+12You fail at science.
The redundancy in the genetic code ensures that most mutations are selectively neutral. As in, the majority of DNA doesn't code for protein (like over 98%). Also, even if a single nucleotide substitution were to occur in a coding region, it doesn't necessarily change the protein, for obvious reasons. (Hint: If you don't understand my last sentence, then you have absolutely no business talking about evolution because you don't know ***** about genetics). - Dimensio, on 11/08/2008, -0/+10"If you really checked my profile and read some of my posts, then you'd know that I don't vote Republican nor support them anymore."
Nonetheless, you are a demonstrable liar; you have repeatedly made false statements on the subject of evolution despite being corrected on multiple occasions. - OneNaturalOne, on 11/08/2008, -1/+10No. Evolution doesn't make things better. It just makes things survive and reproduce. Haven't you seen Idiocracy? Evolution doesn't care how fat or dumb or slow you are, as long as you survive and keep making babies, it says "A WINNER IS YOU"
- moges, on 11/08/2008, -1/+10Wow! Organisms are designed by an intelligent being who gives no direct evidence for his existence. Go figure...
- jugglingjon, on 11/08/2008, -1/+10Way off. There are a near infinite amount of possible negative, neutral, and positive mutations that any given organism can acquire randomly. If an organism were to gain a random negative trait from a mutation (say an allergy to sunlight), then that would presumably reduce the life span of that individual and make it less likely to reproduce and pass on the trait to offspring. The negative trait dies off with the organism, or spreads slowly and dies out later in its few offspring, affecting a relatively low number of organisms.
However, if an organism were to gain a positive trait from a random mutation (say immunity to skin cancer from sunlight) then the organism would presumably live longer, and reproduce more offspring which would inherit the trait. Those offspring would also benefit from the trait, living longer and reproducing more. The positive trait persists in the population because it benefits the reproductive ability of that organism, so it spreads and positively affects the lifespan of a far higher number of organisms.
Negative traits tend to die off because they damage reproductive potential, positive traits tend to spread and affect a far higher number of organisms. So while it could be true that there are more possible negative mutations, the positive ones have a far broader and more persistent effect on a population. - TxRevolutionary, on 11/08/2008, -2/+11You got it half right.
Yes, many mutations are detrimental to the health of the organism. The operative word here is "many". Some are just useless, such as vestigial tails, or polydactyly (extra digits). However, every once in a while, a mutation will come along that helps an organism survive. These are the ones that get passed on.
Such a mechanism is possible, and it already has happened. Groups of humans living at high altitudes develop shorter limbs and greater lung capacity. Two billion years is plenty of time, even on an evolutionary scale. - Fordi, on 11/08/2008, -1/+10Um. It has happened. Quite a few times. In fact, quite a few orders of magnitude over a few times.
First, mutations that are detrimental generally kill the organism. Second, mutations that are beneficial are preserved, as that organism ends up passing on their line. Third, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, and are also preserved.
Detrimental mutations happen more often than beneficial ones - but that doesn't matter a whole lot, as they're quickly removed from the gene pool. Detrimental mutations do not usually happen at a rate high enough to kill off populations.
Meanwhile, because you have huge numbers, comparatively, of neutral mutations, and because truly detrimental mutations are quickly removed, you can see the framework laid down for potential variation. Perhaps a specific mutation makes you taller than one of your peers - this doesn't give you an environmental advantage, but it doesn't hurt either. Say, then, your son has a mutation that amplifies this effect - he's a full eight inches taller than you, and decides he wants to become a pro basketball player.
This is an obvious environmental and reproductive advantage. His genes - and the new 'tall' gene will get passed on.
The thing to remember, though, is that this (evolution) is only a directed process so far as the environment offers opportunities for advantage. Tallness has its advantages and disadvantages - and as these are overcome by compensatory mutations (that's the part that takes millions of years - but sexual preferences* help). Meanwhile, there may be other things that carry advantages** - even things that seem a little backwards*** - and these do compete for the resources of the growing organism.
For humans it takes a while. We do take from 14 to 30 years to go from birth to procreation, after all. Each generation, as far as the biologist is concerned, passes at an almost intolerably slow rate.
That said, major morphological change can come about in only one generation. Six toed cats is a good example. You have an entirely new structure in a single mutation. Whether this new morphological feature spreads to the wider population depends on a few things: are the geographically or otherwise isolated from the larger population? Is the extra toe an advantage (watch a six-toes cat pick up a lizard and munch it like a candy bar some time)? A disadvantage (do cats get hung up on or turned off by toe count)? Neutral?
If it's neutral, you can expect the feature to become a recessive trait. If advantageous, dominant. If deleterious, you can expect it to go away in short order.
Mind you, there *is* a pretty insular colony of polydactyl cats in Key West, at the Hemingway house. They don't tend to interbreed with strays up Route 1, so we can reasonably assume that they're geographically isolated. I won't say that they've speciated - but I wouldn't be surprised if any offspring from a Hemingway and a northern house cat ended up as mules.
Anyways, the point is - well, I didn't have a point, really. I'm just trying to enlighten. Cheers!
* such as wide hips, big shoulders, red hair, huge genetalia, the ability to communicate clearly, etc; depending on the preferrer's orientation and preferences
** large brains, tough skin, stronger muscles
*** Obesity can be perceived as a historical evolutionary advantage, if your heritage found itself in the arctic cold for a geologic length of time. - Dimensio, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8" Although I am not a creationist, I could say that God created the squirrel in certain way, so at best your theory is at impasse with creationism, neither one could win."
Please describe the physical processes involved in the "creating" mechanism, demonstrate the existence of the "God" responsible for this mechanism, then explain the observed evidence used to derive the occurence of the "creation" event. Until you do this, your counter-proposal has no scientific merit. - Fordi, on 11/08/2008, -0/+8Oh. Thanks for winning us the election, then, Jimmy.
- kh99, on 11/08/2008, -2/+10So only intelligence can design intelligence. But wait - in that case, how can there be any intelligence at all? Wow! I guess that idea doesn't make any sense at all. Go figure.
- CaptOblivious, on 11/08/2008, -0/+8The ability to adapt is a symptom of fitness. So, Actually it is still survival of the fittest.
- Coven, on 11/08/2008, -0/+7Detpack, Jimmy is just a pathetic troll who gets his jollies from getting dugg down into oblivion. It is best to just ignore him. Unfortunately his misinformation must sometimes be countered. This particular statement he has made has been debunked thoroughly in the depths of the upcoming section of digg for many many months now. He continues to repeat himself, despite the fact that he knows he's been proven wrong time and time again.
- simg, on 11/08/2008, -1/+8The one common trait that I see in all "creationists" is that they have *absolutely no clue* about how evolution works.
They have not bothered to educate themselves about the subject but are absolutely certain that it couldn't have worked that way. All around them they see evidence for "intelligent design" whilst in complete ignorance of the natural processes surrounding them. - jugglingjon, on 11/08/2008, -0/+6This article uses a lot of misleading terms to describe what's going on, I don't think I could digg up an article that describes 'evolution learning' something. Evolution is the product of random mutations which happen to make an organism better suited for its environment. A key for this process to work is that the environment needs to stay consistent; if it's not consistent then the mutated traits may no longer match the environment properly, and that mutated organism would not benefit and reproduce more. The idea from this article is that a systematically changing environment has enough consistency to support evolutionary adaptation and propagation. It's an interesting idea, but these aren't terms one should use to describe evolution.
- julianrod, on 11/08/2008, -1/+7The methods evolution uses just creep me out... they're so amazing and incredible. Just with activating and de-activating genes, it's completely fascintating.
And to think that Darwin didn't know crap about genes... a true visionary. - jholden42, on 11/08/2008, -0/+6I suppose.. but still, it seems as though phrasing things in these sorts of ways so that they'll be "easier to understand" is likely to result in more entrenched misunderstandings later on.
- Coven, on 11/08/2008, -1/+7Evolution: You don't have to be the best, just good enough to get by and knock up a female of your species.
- kleptomaniac, on 11/08/2008, -0/+5The average human being contains about 100 mutations, 3 of which will cause a notable change in phenotype.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html - raymondmarble, on 11/08/2008, -0/+5"To my knowledge, not a single evolutionist was able to come with a theory of the evolutionary wing."
Then your knowledge is lacking. For starters:
http://www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden/proje ...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13683-e ...
http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/ ...
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html - inactive, on 11/08/2008, -0/+5James, people like you are the reason religious folks are such easy targets. You will NEVER have evidence to support anything you say so don't even try to sound as though any kind of science can back up your *****. Take the last step and become the complete whackjob you're gonna end up being.
- moges, on 11/08/2008, -2/+7Its a common mistake to think of evolution in terms of individual members of a species. Evolution doesn't work that way, and it is easy to see why (when you actually understand evolution) people get confused about evolution: they don't see the big picture.
Evolution works across all members of a species, over many generations. It takes time. - skiiper, on 11/08/2008, -1/+6Every time a story about evolution gets to the front page someone will come in and troll the place up.
- inactive, on 11/08/2008, -2/+7Spaza's like a Winger CD... When you see it again after many years you wonder why you don't listen to it till you pop it in. Still stupid and nothing changed.
- Fordi, on 11/08/2008, -0/+5Yeah. I got told elsewhere that it wasn't really brilliant for Darwin to have identified life as a sort of biological ratchet, because free market capitalism had much the same connotations. I'm not entirely sure why that's not brilliant - the ratchet had been around for centuries before free market capitalism.
Cross-pollination of ideas didn't really become an accepted way to come up with new ideas until around the 1600's (though, there was a some going on in Plato's time); we didn't get really good at it until around the 1950's. What Darwin did in the 1800's /was/ brilliant for his time. - inactive, on 11/08/2008, -1/+5The real question in why did Intelligence design stupidity!
- Mujokan, on 11/08/2008, -0/+4Evolution is about reproduction. It can select for being slower or dumber too. There is no such thing as "inferior" or "superior" in evolution, there is just the genotype persisting, changing or disappearing.
- Brododium, on 11/08/2008, -0/+4So poorly written:
"They proposed that organisms can learn how previous environments changed, and then use this information for their evolutionary advantage in the future. For example, if the available seeds tended to vary in size and hardness along history, then bird species might have learned to develop beaks with an easily tunable (sic) size and strength. "
Do the birds get together and discuss that they should evolve beaks? Is this evolution by committee?
Bird 1: "Hey guys, these tough nuts are breakin' my balls, we need something to break THEM"
Bird 2: "I know, let's get mouthy-thing with a hook-y, bill-y thing"
Birds 1, 3 & 4 "Capital!" - Coven, on 11/08/2008, -0/+4I stand corrected. Fordi already nailed it below, but I'll repeat.
Evolution: You don't have to be the best, just good enough to pass on your genes to a future generation. - inactive, on 11/09/2008, -0/+4You give the same tired, dated answers. We've been round and round. We supply you with thousands of examples of evolution which is back by decades of research and scientific proof and you spit out some counter BS written by a plumber or some other unqualified individual and claim it is proof against evolution.
You are a tired and weak minded fool who would rather live a lie than try to understand real science and how it works.
A Spartan is a perfect avatar for you. They were so close minded they defeated themselves by not adapting to the world around them. They thought they were the end all be all by shear might alone. How wrong they were. - inactive, on 11/08/2008, -0/+4Actually, it's survival of the "fit enough." Nature is not a perfectionist. As long as you're surviving and reproducing, that's all that really matters.
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/08/2008, -0/+4I am here!
Damn, no one believes me. - johnnysaucepn, on 11/08/2008, -0/+4Haven't you noticed how wing structures are similar to forelegs?
Haven't you noticed how the therapod group of dinosaurs had already moved towards running on two legs instead of four? (See: T.Rex)
As for wings not being able to develop incrementally, may I introduce you to Mr. Flying Squirrel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel
The short answer is that being able to jump further by moving your arms is a benefit in escaping predators, being able to glide short distances is even better, being able to fly for long periods is better still. There is no 'fly or not fly' distinction. - TheCatsPants, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4"natural selection works only when random structural changes give the species an advantage over its predecessors. But there was no advantage as far as creation of the wing is concerned because the necessary aerodynamic changes did not occur (that could only happen if there were a sharp transition from non-flying species to the flying ones). This principle of natural selection is not applicable in this case, so there were no incremental changes that could possibly lead to production of the wing."
So you're still claiming that "half a wing" is no better than none at all? Even though many creatures exploit various forms of aerial locomotion for getting around and escaping predation (from a controlled fall, to gliding, to soaring, to different kinds of full-blown flapping flight) with different flight-durations and efficiencies?
Do you agree that bird wings and bat wings appear to be adaptations of the forelimb of their ancestors and that this is evidence of the development of wings from primitive structures? - Fordi, on 11/08/2008, -1/+5Correction: You don't have to be the best, just good enough to spit out a few kids.
- TheCatsPants, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4The point about the flying squirrel was to answer your claim that "half a wing" is of no use. In fact "half a wing" is very useful. The ability to glide or fly has evolved several times, with examples in mammals, fish, as well as birds and insects. He wasn't claiming that all flying creatures are related, and no biologist would, but I'm sure you didn't deliberately intend to misunderstand the point he was making. Your argument is akin to the "what use is half an eye?" argument often touted by creationists, and again half an eye is much, much better than none at all, with many examples throughout nature.
"a possible evolutionary path to show that the wing actually evolved from primitive structures"
I think that the fact that, in birds and bats at least, it is pretty obvious that wings developed from primitive structures - namely their forelimbs of their ancestors.
"So far all aerodynamic theories indicate the exact opposite -- there is no incremental transition from non-flying structures to flying ones because such transition does not lead to improvement in aerodynamic properties, you have to make a sharp transition to be able to fly."
There are many ways to achieve flight or glide as evidenced by the variety of wing shapes and techniques employed by the animal kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_and_gliding_an ... - TheOneTrueGod, on 11/08/2008, -0/+3Simple answer: Evolution again. All forms are tried. Stupidity is upheld by society itself, hence it is not proven unviable, hence it doesn't go away.
- Dimensio, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3"I did not say that I am proposing an experiment showing that God exists. I was implying that, from logical standpoint, it is impossible to tell whether the creationists or the evolutionists are correct. "
If you cannot demonstrate that the entity proposed by creationists is extant, or that there exists evidence that can be used to reasonably deduce the existence of the entity, then any assertions regarding actions of the entity are meaningless and unscientific, and they are without merit.
If you cannot describe the mechanism by which organisms are "created" then "creation" has no scientific basis.
" All sciences begin with logic, and if there is two or more competing theories with no way of telling which one is correct, they both are discarded."
Science begins with observation. Events that are not observed -- either directly or indirectly -- cannot be incorporated in a scientific explanation. - inactive, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Yes, Spaz. All creationists. Believing in fairy tales requires ignorance.
- Mujokan, on 11/08/2008, -0/+3This is a natural "strategy" because it's much easier (more probable) to switch something off from expression rather than delete it. Like coders do. Then of course it's still there to be switched back on, which is a bonus. "Junk" DNA has loads of useful stuff in it.
- migshark, on 11/08/2008, -0/+3Yes we survived some harsh environments, but we're at the stage now where we should recognise we have dominance and that we don't need procreate at such an alarming rate.
It's not about hating mankind, it's about encouraging more balanced ecosystems. Oh and you can like it or not but over time organisms HAVE acted like plagues and viruses. Grass, for example. - aelias, on 11/08/2008, -0/+3I don't know about buried, but I did wince at the description.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Half a wing allows minimal gliding, enough drag to land from various heights without injury, etc. Your problem is that you are assuming that the structure had the same purpose throughout its history in the population.
Also, Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is still incremental, it just takes place on a time scale that, in geological terms, is relatively short. For example, suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation, despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record. - inactive, on 11/08/2008, -0/+2This is why you always comment your (genetic) code.
- kleptomaniac, on 11/08/2008, -0/+2'Cause it says so in the bible.
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Fairy tales, such as this one: an invisible man in the sky, who refuses to reveal his existence to the more intelligent, made everyone and everything in the world in six literal days.
-
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is