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

Mine too...

 

The passage of time is not an influence within NS, and one should not expect any viewable eveolution untill a certain environment becomes more, or less advantageous to changes. The changes happen first...then whats around will adapt to it, and prosper, or not.

I'm not familiar with ecoli's mutations thus far.....

 

What did you just post?!?!

So, you don't believe in Natural Selection or the processes of evolution? Wait...

Just explain why in "your" world you stated that a lifeform CHOOSES when to evolve and not too.

 

I agree, but I think it has to deal with the links I provided and have discussed when you have been gone.

I have stated that life will only adapt and change to the "current" DNA sequences. There are no "new" DNA and I even suggested that bird and dino are not different, but the same, only the sequences of DNA have been turned on or off that let's it adapt. There is no evolution, just sequences of DNA turning on. Like temperature determining turtle sexes, same things can apply for all life on this planet.

Now, what I have has been passed the scientific method....

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

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

 

Of course I do. And natural selection adapts an organism to its environment. In a stable environment, natural selection will actually conserve an organism rather that causing it to change.

Who ever said anything about choosing? Organisms do not choose to evolve.

Populations adapt to their environment entirely involuntarily. If their environment is stable, they are already adapted and so change will be slight. If the environment is changing, they will adapt accordingly to track that environmental change.

 

But there is new DNA.

Example: Trichromatic vision in the old World Monkeys and African Apes developed after a gene duplication mutation created a third gene for the retinal protein opsin. Subsequent point mutations "tuned" the new opsin protein to be sensitive to a third wavelength of light, turning the bichromatic vision of all other primates into full trichromatic.

In this case, two proteins for color vision became three; a 50% increase in "new DNA."

Gene duplications add completely new genes to the genome, allowing the original protein to be conserved for its original purpose, and the new protein to evolve in any direction natural selection will take it. There are a large number of proteins that can be shown to have arisen in this way.

 

Ummm... yea... If the environment is stable things do not mutate and evolve.

Just to let you know, per evolutionary theorist, everything is always in a flux of evolving, just to let you know. Every ecosystem is evolving (not adapting) and life evolves with other life within the ecosystem.

But, you believe that life will not evolve if the ecosystem is stable (for whatever you think "stable" is...).

 

Did a search for "new DNA" came up with nothing (as I already KNEW) and then searched "50%" which also came up with nothing...

Telling fibs again huh?

 

Why search? I already linked you directly to a scientific paper on the subject.

 

No. They mutate and evolve all the time. But in a stable environment natural selection is conservative. So no significant morphological change tales place.

Of course.

It will evolve. It just will not show much morphological change.

 

So what "causes" these significant "morphological" changes?

What is the cause of showing morphological changes?

 

I searched on the paper of what you said it said and it didn't say what you said it said...

 

Just curious... What was the name of the lifeform that was Old and New World's Monkeys ancestor that this paper came from that they are taking the DNA from?

I saw them cloning New and Old World Monkeys, but not the common ancestor they say they evolved from? What kind of hokie crap is that?

 

Then read it and try to actually understand it.

 

Natural selection.

The translation through embryonic development of the genome into the phenome.

 

It is not named.

 

Uhhhh... how does Natural Selection and the translation through embryonic development know that the ecosystem outside of the womb or cocoon or whatever is in a state that it doen't need to "make changes"...

How the dog crap does cell division test the ecosystem of adaptability WHILE during cell division?

 

Of course it isn't...

 

It doesn't "know" anything. If a fully developed phenotype provides advantages, it will produce more offspring carrying the genotype for that phenotype. If it doesn't, it won't.

It doesn't.

 

Of course.

 

Then you are going to have to explain how during a time when something "can't" know that it's ecosystem is in equalibrium that it doesn't make large evolutionary changes?

If it makes evolutionary changes that are insignificant, during this time where it happens, how does it know "what type" of change the life is going to need to survive.

Because I am still wondering how did you come up with that life in good ecosystems do not make these significant "morphological" changes, because they don't need them...

I asked how do they know they don't need them and you just replied they don't, so now we are back in the every circling whirlpool of WKA...

You post something and when questioned you don't answer.

But, if it doesn't know then why did you post this?

What is the process that, during replication, this happens...?

 

Here is the examples I have heard, the ice age rolls around and everything dies except two layered fur animals. They evolved to have fur on accident, and when times changed - they survived. We are on the same page.

We can talk about somethng else you are familiar with?

How about insects? Canis Lupis (hounds)?

 

My favorite site for those who know not what evolution is:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

As Goldwater and I stated, evolution happens regardless of what the flippin ecosystem is doing...

 

I already did. In periods of environmental stability, mutations to an already well adapted organism would tend to make it less well adapted, and so be naturally selected out of the gene pool. In this way, natural selection is conservative during periods of environmental stasis.

If they are insignificant, it's not natural selection. It's genetic drift.

Why do you keep asking how it "knows" when you have been repeatedly told it doesn't? Nothing "knows" what is either beneficial or detrimental. It is simply a fact of nature that detrimental gets you killed and beneficial helps you live.

Not "good" ecosystems. Stable ecosystems.

If you keep asking the same question you will keep getting the same answer. If you keep asking how they "know" you will keep getting the answer that they don't know. That is the answer that that question. If you want a different answer, you need to ask different questions.

I answer all your questions as directly as I possibly can. If you want elaboration, you should ask for it instead of just asking the same question again.

This process does not happen during replication. Natural selection acts primarily on a developed phenome. Not on cells as they divide and specialize during embryological development. And we're still talking about natural selection, not some other process.

 

Of course. What part of "They mutate and evolve all the time" did you not understand?