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

And where is your post showing me other species outside the Great Ape family that has the same exact sequences in Human Chromosome 2 or The Great Apes Chromosome 2A and 2B?

 

First as very solid evidence that the phenomenon observed is not genetic drift.

Second, since intense selection reduces genetic variation, it seems obvious that the experiment would demonstrate faster selection at the beginning when genetic variation was greatest than later when that variation has been reduced.

The experiment is still underway after about 23 years, and research papers are still being written regularly. I have read several of them, but certainly not all of them.

They use the word as it is meant to be used. They are hardly trying to push anybody anywhere. They are evolutionary biologists writing for other evolutionary biologists. They are not looking over their shoulders to see what the creationists are saying.

 

I did not. I posted that queen ants were not asexual... and you have come up with a single exception that proves the rule. I am not certain why you find that meaningful.

Again... while propaganda has certainly taken on a pejorative reputation, propaganda is not necessarily false. The research on the salamander ring species is still underway, and still delivering fascinating and significant science.

It is hardly merely anti-creationist propaganda.

 

No because they can't live in the same ecosystem anymore. One is too toxic or too pure for each other. And as time goes by the difference will be more and more pronounced. They wouldn't even be able to breed toghetter by then.

 

Because it is. That was "whole" female colonies. Asexual ant queens not uncommon, but they are around...

 

TO ALL TO LOOK AT FROM KIMISHO (who doesn't hold the same view as I do - that is why I posted his whole post)

http://www.politicalforum.com/4317755-post227.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/4318569-post233.html

 

Wow...that is one incredibly dumb post. Education has failed some people..

 

Ask if he cares

 

The premises of the question were firmly rooted in anthropomorphism though, insofar as you couched its terms in such a manner as it relied on unthinking, accidental processes having to make human decisions.

It depends on the adaptation, the specific organism in question, and the ecosystem in question. However, generally, mutations among organisms take a while to get fixed in a population and those other organisms it interacts with are also undergoing the same processes, which has the effect of an arms race going on. The predators might become more effective, but the prey is too. Natural selection doesn't occur in a vacuum, and only seldom are we going to find a single mutation that produces such a profound effect becoming fixed so quickly as to cause such a paradigm shift in an ecosystem.

If I'm getting what you're saying, I'd give a "yes, with qualifications." An organism can accrue a set of adaptations that work well in current environments and within an ecosystem, while a change to the environment/ecosystem would then prove those adaptations to be more harmful to it after those changes occur. For instance, on the Galapagos Islands, there are numerous finch species with bill shapes that have adapted to eat all manner of food. During wetter years, those finches with bills able to crack open the seeds of plants that release thick-shelled seeds survive better, because those plants produce a ton of seeds. However, when drought years come and the seed crop falls dramatically, those finches experience large die-offs while finches more adapted to eating the seeds of drought-tolerant plants will survive much better. While that example is of something more cyclical than what you're talking about, it does illustrate the point; when conditions change, an adaptation that was working out great can turn into a hindrance, especially if the change is a permanent one.

 

Natural selection and genetic drift are inextricably linked, for the most part. In large populations, genetic drift is considerably dampened, but can still occur (especially if there are a large amount of alleles for a given gene), while it is more pronounced in small populations. Part of what can make genetic drift occur is natural selection, too, by preferentially promoting or demoting alleles based on benefit/cost of having that allele.

The way the brain develops is controlled by genes, and neurotransmitters are produced by genes. Instinct and thought are very much controlled by genes. Look at the many genetic disorders in humans alone that produce different sorts of mental disability and impediment.

 

Natural selection and genetic drift are inextricably linked, for the most part. In large populations, genetic drift is considerably dampened, but can still occur (especially if there are a large amount of alleles for a given gene), while it is more pronounced in small populations. Part of what can make genetic drift occur is natural selection, too, by preferentially promoting or demoting alleles based on benefit/cost of having that allele.

The way the brain develops is controlled by genes, and neurotransmitters are produced by genes. Instinct and thought are very much controlled by genes. Look at the many genetic disorders in humans alone that produce different sorts of mental disability and impediment.

 

There are also "asexual" lizards. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

True...anything is possible....but we've seen single cell microbes...and we have never seen Gods, demons, aliens, or gremlins. I think it's likely that those things were not the first form of life on earth

 

So are there any examples where a whole "species" of life went extinct? Ecosystems are delicate to say the least. One change can ruin life within. Where has there been a compete extinction where an "evolutionary step" was fixed then the ecosytem evolved and created that "evolutionary step" not useful anymore and that life went extinct?

 

I would have to disagree. Genetic Drift can happen without natural selection.

So, the instinct of life killing its young to maintain ecosystems is hardwired instinct?

 

That you were wrong again then lied about being wrong...

Again...

 

TO ALL TO LOOK AT FROM KIMISHO (who doesn't hold the same view as I do - that is why I posted his whole post)

http://www.politicalforum.com/4317755-post227.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/4318569-post233.html

 

We have also seen miracles from people who say it's God. Or all our left socks disappearing after washing them. People who say they have seen aliens.

It to what we want to believe. They are all stories in themselves without hard evidence to back them up.

 

I have witnessed many miraculous things, and I am a man of faith....but miracles, demons, God, etc.....don't need the scientific method.

Using the scientific method....we have seen that life forms on earth seem to be getting more complex as time progresses. The simplest form of life on Earth, discovered to date, are single cell microbes. So a hypothesis is bound to ensue.

The scientific method is not applicable to miracles, demons, etc....

 

So... you actually were trying to make no point at all?

 

Of course. Even whole classes have gone extinct. Think trilobites.

 

The point was that you lie frequently and are wrong often... During a debate that is very important!

 

I agree, you can’t apply the scientific method to demons and/or gremlins.

But, I do know this. IF evolution is measured in generations (not years), then for those simple lifeforms, wouldn’t there be significant change? Wouldn’t E. Coli be completely different from the samples we discovered years ago? In fact we should be able to do so about every 10 years since E. Coli replicates quite rapidly.

I forgot when E. Coli was discovered, but it’s been around for a while and not evolved… Adapted, but it’s still E. Coli… How many generations, on average, does life on this planet evolve? Is it called “rate of evolving”, “rate of evolution”, I don’t know…

Shouldn’t have put you are a man of faith, now they will judge you!

 

My irony meter just exploded again.

 

There are significant changes.

Not completely. No. The changes observed in the long term evolution experiment were initiated by artificially changing their environment. But the environment within which E. coli lives in nature (i.e. the mammalian gut) is quite stable. Why would an organism already well adapted for a stable environment change dramatically?