Evolution is a Joke PT VII (back by popular demand)

It's not nice to confuse DBM aka FDS like this. He will now have to find a place outside the cheeta to place the intelligence.

 

What about life that lives for only hours. Do you think that in a controlled experiment that last, let’s say, five years we would be able to see NS and record trends?

I don’t think evolution will ever pass the scientific method.

In your absence we have discussed that “fact” that junk DNA is no longer junk and it is in fact there for a purpose. What do you know about this?

 

This was my point in another thread on how does life know when to quit and maintain an equilibrium within their ecosystem. How does the cheetah know that she needs to kill “x” amount of cubs for survival of the species?

She shouldn’t know is my point.

Not all ant queens are asexual….

 

Uhhh... what?

You should never gamble Freeware!

 

Oh... that experiment has been underway for almost a quarter century now. And yes, it is able to see natural selection and record trends.

 

She doesn't.

As far as I am aware, no ant queens are asexual.

 

I know you weren't talking to me....but animals don't have intellect...so almost everything they do is done out of instinct.....they're all hypocampus.

As far as social animals killing off mutations...to be more accurate, I'd call it killing off defective members...and not all mutations are a defect. In some cases the mutation is advantageous in the social order

 

Yes... already know about this.. What results have you gotten out of this experiment that shows NS?

 

Exactly, and are you sure there are asexual queen ants?

 

Exactly, but how does the life form "know" what is advantageous and what is not?

Complexity, from what Darwinist guess, is done in stages, thus would be routed out by NS in this scenario...

 

Equilibria in nature are maintained, basically, through serendipity. The classic example of lynxes and snowshoe hares illustrates it well; the numbers of each animal are stable, but only in cycles. The lynxes kill and eat a bunch of snowshoe hares when the population explodes, but as the lynx population climbs, they experience a die-off when too many hares are killed by lynxes, which reduces the hare population. Then, the hare numbers explode because they aren't under such population pressures by lynxes, leading us back to lynx numbers increasing. It's stable, but not through any sort of foresight. It's a number of complex feedback loops working haphazardly together to create some semblance of order, but only because if an earlier cycle resulted in some gross changes, then either the whole ecosystem changed or an animal died out because it was a little too successful at what it did (for instance, viruses killing out all their hosts because they're too virulent and too successful at infecting their hosts).

She, personally, wouldn't know. However, genetic-level influences force her hand.

Ant queens, by definition, are fertile. Evolution acts upon them, not upon sterile workers.

 

They don't. Variations due to mutations result in different strategies being tried out. Those that work tend to become fixed in populations rather quickly, leading to macroscale changes in phenotype and genotype of an organism.

 

Then we should have cases where a species of life got wiped out due to not maintaining the equilibrium of nature. Yes?

What are you suggesting on a whole there Ak? Genetic Level what is influencing her hand?

As for females I believe there are both infertile and fertile. Also, ant queens use male sperm…

 

Being tried out... I agree, but that would lead to an equal amount of life that "tried out" something that didn't work within their ecosystem and thus brought them to extinction equivalent to those species who "tried out" the correct gene sequence.

Question: How does a species (group of organisms) choose what is good or isn't good for them dealing with an ever changing ecosystem?

Couldn't life choose one thing, but the ecosystem (everything within) chooses something different AFTER the mutation is within the whole population?

 

The ecosystem is made up of individual life. It isn't a separate entity and doesn't really decide on way or another on anything. The ecosystem doesn't "decide" to be colder or more arid...

Life on the other hand is so fragile that unnaceptable changes will kill the recipient in the short or long term. Life doesn't decide either... The mutations (change) that occurs impose that decision.

Are you of the belief that the change that occurs must reach their apogee some day and resultin a supra being?

Because there are no such garantee... The only thing that we know is that "bad" changes will kill off a species. But "good" changes doesn't mean necessarally "superior" changes.

 

The only thing a life form does to participate in NS....is not be dead, and breed....and it really doesn't need to think about anything to be selected by nature for survival over another similar organism competing for the same food sources.

One thing that has me confused is......do you think that most life forms on Earth have not been changing over time?.........because that's all evolution is!

 

If you "already know about this," then why are you asking that question?

For one thing, they are bigger — twice as big on average as their common ancestor. They are also far better at reproducing in these flasks, dividing 70 percent faster than their ancestor. And they have developed the new capacity to digest citrate. All of these changes were driven by the selective advantage of the characteristic in question.

Follow up experiments by other researches have shown bacteria adapt through natural selection to temperature extremes, adapt "social" behaviors to compete for limited resources, and even mutate to fill three or more different ecological niches.

 

I just said there were not.

An asexual ant is by definition not "queen ant."

 

It doesn't.

Not at all. As long as genetic variation exists, natural selection can act.

 

Your being good now... How long will it last I wonder...?

Those were only questions I was asking... because individual life does mutatem, and thus, within a small ecosystem a single mutation can lead to death, but what if it's okay in one ecosystem, and then that ecosystem mutates - but a specific creature living in this ecosystem doesn't "adapt" and thus becomes extinct.

I feel if this, and it does, happen on small scales, it should happen on a grander scale.

Can you think of one?

 

You're engaging in anthropomorphic thinking; organisms or even populations of organisms don't make choices regarding mutations of alleles or anything of that nature. Random point mutations (or whole chromosome branch duplications or something of that nature) occur, and those variations are then either contributing to survival or hindering survival. Those that contribute more than they hinder are passed along more than genotypes that do not have that allele in them.

I'm not certain what you're asking here; hopefully my above explanation gave you the answer you wanted, though.

 

Yes; island ecosystems are very good examples of this. Birds develop without pressure from predators and lose the ability to fly, and upon the introduction of a predator(s) (typically cats, rats, dogs, and/or pigs), the population is wiped out and equilibrium is only reached once the prey and predators are both dead and a new equilibrium composed of things that didn't die out is established.

Yes, because that is the basal unit of evolution. Genotype determines phenotype, by and large, including behavioral changes (witness gene changes in the domestication of Vulpes vulpes in Siberia, whereas changes in genotype produce a change in behavior).

Worker ants are sterile; they do not breed. Queen ants and drones (males) are fertile and produce offspring.

 

Such "trials" take place within populations, not with entire populations at a time. If the adaptation is beneficial, it will eventually spread through the rest of the population. If it's not, it is generally eliminated form the gene pool before it has an opportunity to spread.

They don't. The environment does the choosing automatically.

Ignoring that no choice was involved, an environment (not ecosystem) that changes faster than the species can adapt is a key cause of extinction, and specifically the cause of mass extinctions.

 

Then it becom extinct... You reached that conclusion yourself. There isn't any garantee that any mutation or adaptation will happens and "save" one life form in case of a rapid change in the ecosystem, like draining a pool for example won't mean that the fish living in that ecosystem will magically sprout lungs instead of gills.

But if a mutation appears in any species it will be subject to the NS process by the simple fact that "bad" mutation will in time kill off the species that inherit them while the good one will insure that the species will continue.

One verifiable example of this is polution. If you polute a river in a catastrophic fashion the fishes will die. But if it is done over time you see species that get some beneficial mutation of their gills and/or digestive system to cope with their new environment. Those fish didn'ty just adapt, they changed/mutated. They wouldn't be able to survive in clear water anymore since they have become dependent on that environment.

 

Well thank you to dodging my question.

I guess I will have to ask this again: