Thread: The curious thing about natural selection

god did it, you athiest scum!!!! jk~~

how about I give you the briefest def? species get random mutations, some mutations are better suited for the enviroment they live in, thus the ones with these mutations live on to reproduce and pass on the mutation. Over time this process can create a new species instead of just variation in one species. so, mutations are random, who survives is not.

Go further if you can, into the branches as they go.

Natural selection and evolution have strange things that go together for example (I'll have to go and create a picture with lines N stuff to show what I'm trying to communicate.)

Here is sort of what I'm talking about. This picture isn't of "species" but of "traits." I made it myself in a rush so it is pretty crappy.

It doesn't say what I'm trying to convey accurately but let me see...



Alright, consider each trait being passed on is being passed on with other traits...now though the trait still exists...this same trait will have been passed on to other organisms (most likely) and even though it had this trait it still died. A species itself isn't really classifiable in a common sense because at what point and at what combination of genes does the animal stop being able to reproduce?

If we separate the beings into A B and C. If species can only reproduce with the same species, and A can reproduce with C but not be, however C can reproduce with both A and B does that mean that C is in both species category? Its complicated lol.

That was confusing... not very blandly put.

Species is just a way to group similar organisms. It's basically arbitrary, but it's based on a common set of rules among biologists and stuff so it's not really that arbitrary. It's still all in your head though.

That's where any ID-argument fails... They say "well, how did a monkey turn into a human?" so they assume that "species" is something external when it's not. The monkey just developed new traits, it's not really a monkey even, it's just a hairy thing walking around.

If I understood anything in your post, you're not asking about natural selection but how biologists classify organisms.

Really I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Here's a good example of Natural Selection in the modern world so people can understand it.

In the UK peppered moths used to be as white as the bark of the trees they made their habitat, however every generation a few peppered moths mutated to have darker pigments, thus causing them to be more easily seen by birds and gobbled up so the pigment coloration remained in a pretty narrow range for millions of years simply because outside of that range, they were targets.

Then the UK industrialized and coal turned the treebark black for this particular tree. Now, if you go back to those forests, all the peppered moths are dark and the lighter ones are getting eaten up.

Originally Posted by Korittke

That was confusing... not very blandly put.

Species is just a way to group similar organisms. It's basically arbitrary, but it's based on a common set of rules among biologists and stuff so it's not really that arbitrary. It's still all in your head though.

That's where any ID-argument fails... They say "well, how did a monkey turn into a human?" so they assume that "species" is something external when it's not. The monkey just developed new traits, it's not really a monkey even, it's just a hairy thing walking around.

If I understood anything in your post, you're not asking about natural selection but how biologists classify organisms.

Really I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

The post is about natural selection and "evolution." Most people deem evolutio as the rising of new species.

Meanwhile what I was saying was that there is no one point when a new species evolves...which is what most people who think of natural selection and evolution seem to misunderstand.

I have seen many video's online that show "evolution" sort of. But the one thing that every one i've ever seen fail to do is to show the fact that...


6 generations of new and combined traits usually mix with another 6 generations of such and such traits.

A^256 mixes with B^367


Most people think of it as here was this animal, and then its babies kept having random mutations until bamo it became a new species...

yeah, I get what you are saying. Im no expert on the "branches" as you say, but I do understand the abitrary nature of species. probably one of the best examples also is the dinosaur show on not too long ago where they could give a chicken more reptilian traits by tinkering with its genes. The succeeded in giving it a long tail and giving it teeth and more scales, it was quite interesting.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

yeah, I get what you are saying. Im no expert on the "branches" as you say, but I do understand the abitrary nature of species. probably one of the best examples also is the dinosaur show on not too long ago where they could give a chicken more reptilian traits by tinkering with its genes. The succeeded in giving it a long tail and giving it teeth and more scales, it was quite interesting.

DINOCHICKEN! I want one.

Well if you fail at life, your genes wouldn't want your kids to fail at life.

According to evolution all life origanted from the first organism right? Where did this first organism come from then? Did it evolve out of rock?

@Chicken with teeth.. sounds pretty cool, got any pics?

Did it evolve out of rock?

Uh, no. This isn't technically about natural selection, it's a subject called 'abiogenesis', and it's really interesting. It's been demonstrated that if you apply an electrical impulse to an atmosphere like the early Earth's you get some of the essential compounds for life. It's possible that a blob of oil slowly grew in the ocean and formed some kind of self sustaining set of chemical reactions, but there's a lot of speculation...

Describe to me in the highest detail you can without looking it up how natural selection and thus evolution works.

What do you think the main misconception is? Natural selection is a fairly simple concept, some members of a population have mutations which favour their environments and hence they have a greater chance of surviving to reproduce and pass on that mutation.

You have not fully grasped the subject though. To say 'natural selection and hence evolution' is wrong; there are some other mechanisms of evolution.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

@Chicken with teeth.. sounds pretty cool, got any pics?

lol, they didnt let it live, they developed the embryo, but Ill see if I can find it, seeing as it was a discovery show

Originally Posted by Xei

You have not fully grasped the subject though. To say 'natural selection and hence evolution' is wrong; there are some other mechanisms of evolution.

Like what?

The interesting thing about new speciation through natural selection is that it is counter intuitive. Beneficial mutations do not lead to new species, as anything that is more desirable than the norm will quickly be mixed into the existing gene pool.

It is negative but sustainable mutation that causes new speciation. The mutation is shunned, or it is simply incapable of surviving in its current niche and is forced to find a new niche away from its kind. In this way it adapts to the change and becomes something new. (all of this takes place over long time periods but its easier to talk about as if it happens in a single generation)

Its easy to see how homo sapiens developed in this manner. Most likely, our decrease in jaw size and strength came (slightly) before our increase in cranial capacity. Our ancestors were unable to chew and digest the foods that their ancestors were eating, and had to learn (genetically speaking) how to reach higher to get the soft fruit out of the trees.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The interesting thing about new speciation through natural selection is that it is counter intuitive. Benefitial mutations do not lead to new species, as anything that is more desirable than the norm will quickly be mixed into the existing gene pool.

It is negative but sustainable mutation that causes new speciation. The mutation is shunned, or it is simply incapable of surviving in its current niche and is forced to find a new niche away from its kind. In this way it adapts to the change and becomes something new. (all of this takes place over long time periods but its easier to talk about as if it happens in a single generation)

Its easy to see how homo sapiens developed in this manner. Most likely, our decrease in jaw size and strength came (slightly) before our increase in cranial capacity. Our ancestors were unable to chew and digest the foods that their ancestors were eating, and had to learn (genetically speaking) how to reach higher to get the soft fruit out of the trees.

Interesting.

Mrs. Garrison explains it very well, even better than most creationists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ2o0FP3ESY&NR=1

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Mrs. Garrison explains it very well, even better than most creationists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ2o0FP3ESY&NR=1

I love that episode.

Like what?

Genetic drift is one of the main ones.

Xei. My statement of "hence evolution" doesn't sound incorrect to me.

What if I were to say electricity and hence the light bulb is able to work...

Natural selection and hence evolution gets to work.

Describe to me in the highest detail you can without looking it up how natural selection and thus evolution works.

Because you can't explain evolution just by explaining natural selection, there are other things apart from natural selection. 'Thus' suggests that by describing natural selection you would be describing evolution.

But that's really just semantics, as long as you know that there are other mechanisms then it's really not worth talking about.

I'd like to know why you think people have a warped view of natural selection though. What kind of things have people said to you? Most people who I've heard from understand it pretty well.

Originally Posted by Xei

Because you can't explain evolution just by explaining natural selection, there are other things apart from natural selection. 'Thus' suggests that by describing natural selection you would be describing evolution.

But that's really just semantics, as long as you know that there are other mechanisms then it's really not worth talking about.

I'd like to know why you think people have a warped view of natural selection though. What kind of things have people said to you? Most people who I've heard from understand it pretty well.

I don't really hold the belief, I wanted to see if it was true. A French biologist said it...and I wanted to test his hypothesis hehe.

The only misconception I've really found is the one where they don't realize that survival rate is the actual key to natural selection. Lol.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/misconcep_01

Google is my friend. I am excluded from the not looking up clause because I'm trying to explain the reason for me asking the explanation X.X.

In my last post, I linked a website.



This image from that site shows a common misconception. The bear needs a coat so he gets one. Nope.

'Common' is the new synonym for 'creationist', I suppose?

Originally Posted by Xei

'Common' is the new synonym for 'creationist', I suppose?

? I'm not certain that it is. I mean...I'm sure its as common in creationist as any other. If you have a misconception, then this is probably one of them.

Like for example on that 70's show Kelso said that eventually the coyote from the roadrunner would develop rocket feet or something like that. That is a misconception.

Only idiots think that.