Funny really, speak to many non-Americans and their first reaction is to speak of red necked ignorant fundamentalist hicks. All wrong of course. But smarter than average? I doubt it.
But minor 'tweaks' can SOMETIMES (or even only RARELY) improve on (in terms of the ability to continue the line) an existing form.
Yes you are OBVIOUSLY right, Natural Selection can only operate on existing forms. That's why the introduction of variation, upon which natural selection operates, is an essential ingredient of the process of Evolution.
Also, the creation of organic molecules happens in the absence of 'Life'. You're not suggesting an intelligent designer worked on Hydrogen, Oxygen Nitrogen and Carbon (and the rest) to create the organics we can observed astronomically, on Titan and in the lab, are you?
Scientists are still working on theories of the origins of life as we know it. It is a difficult subject but still no reason yet to give up and say 'God dunnit'.
Try telling that to a writer.
DNA is 'just a set of letters' but by selecting from them and assembling them in a particular order, information can be created.
Random mutations, and other mechanisms, provide potentially successful combinations (though, more often than not, less successful combinations).
Natural selection 'decides' which is the more successful.
A Scientist who resorts to the 'Supernatural' to explain something they can't understand is no longer working in the realm of Science but has moved to being a theologian.
Fine, but please don't call it Science.
The information in Natural Selection comes from just that: Natural Selection. Form A is better adapted than Form B. Form A survives.
Commentators in this thread seem to have missed one of the main implications of the quoted article (this implication is not a new one anyway): Early organisms were functionally organised, and genetically coded for, by RNAs.
DNA and proteins, including the catalytic functions of enzymes, came later.
See the following, for example:
"1: Nature. 2002 Jul 11;418(6894):214-21. Related Articles, Links
The antiquity of RNA-based evolution.
Joyce GF.
Department of Chemistry and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. gjoyce@scripps.edu
All life that is known to exist on Earth today and all life for which there is evidence in the geological record seems to be of the same form--one based on DNA genomes and protein enzymes. Yet there are strong reasons to conclude that DNA- and protein-based life was preceded by a simpler life form based primarily on RNA. This earlier era is referred to as the 'RNA world', during which the genetic information resided in the sequence of RNA molecules and the phenotype derived from the catalytic properties of RNA."
Speciation is as slow or as 'fast' as it takes. But not as fast as to take place in recorded history. But yes, severe selection pressure due to some change in the environment could cause a species to change more quickly, or populations within a species to diversify. For humans even such a change as a lightening of skin colour for a population would take many thousands of years.
Speciation, the development of a new species from a concurrently existing species requires some isolation mechanism to prevent interbreeding-this could be geographical (Darwins Finches) or due to mating preferences (African Cichlids). A species can also change over time without introducing a new species. There is a bit of confusion being demonstrated generally in this topic about this.
Thanks, that is very helpful. I appreciate the time and effort that has gone into this.
The John Holland article you provided the link to is the same as the Scientific American article you referred to (I dug it out of my Sci Am archive (actually 'Pile').
I contribute to of a Google group 'Creationism vs Evolution'
May I copy your last post to this group, properly credited of course?
Or maybe you would like to post it yourself.
Alsee, I found this posting fascinating. One thing I don't understand, though, is how you can claim such a huge number of parallel tests. The individual is testing just ONE of the possible huge range of combinations. The net result is to pass on a random half set of mutations to an offspring- or not.
Is there a confusion between the population, which is carying out the parallel testing, and the individual which is carrying out just one of the parallel strands of tests?
I would also be grateful for any useful references to texts which deal with the ideas you have raised.
I suspect that 'thinking' in the way implied here (problem solving, planning) was not required for day to day cave person type activities; throwing a straight spear, remembering where that nice plant grows, where that tasty female/male cave person hangs out.
Cave person may well have spent lying down time chilling and pondering life, the universe and everything.
There is a nice summary of the issues on this site. http://physics.ucsd.edu/lhmedia/ It made sense to me, and I'm only a Biologist. The difference is the use of microwaves rather than visible light. Published in the May 2001 issue of Science
Slashdot Mirror
No, Really. The proof is here: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6214/1220/1600/ dodo.0.jpg
Carvone! Delicious.
Funny really, speak to many non-Americans and their first reaction is to speak of red necked ignorant fundamentalist hicks. All wrong of course. But smarter than average? I doubt it.
'Mutating them about 1 million years ahead on the evolutionary scale?' I want some of that, could you please make my gonads glow, too?
Hehe. If I had the mod points this would fly!
Yes you are OBVIOUSLY right, Natural Selection can only operate on existing forms. That's why the introduction of variation, upon which natural selection operates, is an essential ingredient of the process of Evolution.
Also, the creation of organic molecules happens in the absence of 'Life'. You're not suggesting an intelligent designer worked on Hydrogen, Oxygen Nitrogen and Carbon (and the rest) to create the organics we can observed astronomically, on Titan and in the lab, are you?
Scientists are still working on theories of the origins of life as we know it. It is a difficult subject but still no reason yet to give up and say 'God dunnit'.
Random mutations, and other mechanisms, provide potentially successful combinations (though, more often than not, less successful combinations).
Natural selection 'decides' which is the more successful.
Fine, but please don't call it Science.
The information in Natural Selection comes from just that: Natural Selection. Form A is better adapted than Form B. Form A survives.
Commentators in this thread seem to have missed one of the main implications of the quoted article (this implication is not a new one anyway): Early organisms were functionally organised, and genetically coded for, by RNAs. DNA and proteins, including the catalytic functions of enzymes, came later. See the following, for example: "1: Nature. 2002 Jul 11;418(6894):214-21. Related Articles, Links The antiquity of RNA-based evolution. Joyce GF. Department of Chemistry and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. gjoyce@scripps.edu All life that is known to exist on Earth today and all life for which there is evidence in the geological record seems to be of the same form--one based on DNA genomes and protein enzymes. Yet there are strong reasons to conclude that DNA- and protein-based life was preceded by a simpler life form based primarily on RNA. This earlier era is referred to as the 'RNA world', during which the genetic information resided in the sequence of RNA molecules and the phenotype derived from the catalytic properties of RNA."
Speciation is as slow or as 'fast' as it takes. But not as fast as to take place in recorded history. But yes, severe selection pressure due to some change in the environment could cause a species to change more quickly, or populations within a species to diversify. For humans even such a change as a lightening of skin colour for a population would take many thousands of years.
Speciation, the development of a new species from a concurrently existing species requires some isolation mechanism to prevent interbreeding-this could be geographical (Darwins Finches) or due to mating preferences (African Cichlids). A species can also change over time without introducing a new species. There is a bit of confusion being demonstrated generally in this topic about this.
Hah. They are just loads of little green men on holiday at the beach.
Thanks, that is very helpful. I appreciate the time and effort that has gone into this. The John Holland article you provided the link to is the same as the Scientific American article you referred to (I dug it out of my Sci Am archive (actually 'Pile'). I contribute to of a Google group 'Creationism vs Evolution' May I copy your last post to this group, properly credited of course? Or maybe you would like to post it yourself.
Alsee, I found this posting fascinating. One thing I don't understand, though, is how you can claim such a huge number of parallel tests. The individual is testing just ONE of the possible huge range of combinations. The net result is to pass on a random half set of mutations to an offspring- or not. Is there a confusion between the population, which is carying out the parallel testing, and the individual which is carrying out just one of the parallel strands of tests? I would also be grateful for any useful references to texts which deal with the ideas you have raised.
The program running this simulation has the Sh**iest user interface.
Cave person may well have spent lying down time chilling and pondering life, the universe and everything.
Yeah and there is no evidence of a boogey man in my cupboard.
Shudder. I'm not going to sleep well tonight.
And why.
Maybe 'He' could reach in and correct some of the flawed DNA before creating any new stuff.
And why wouldn't an atheist wish to argue a rational case for there not being a God?
Do we really want the surface of Mars covered with huge windmills? That would tend to spoil the view. I'd prefer a nuclear power station myself.
There is a nice summary of the issues on this site. http://physics.ucsd.edu/lhmedia/ It made sense to me, and I'm only a Biologist. The difference is the use of microwaves rather than visible light. Published in the May 2001 issue of Science
Creationists can easily explain anything by saying "God did it".
Who needs Science?
Haven't you just lost lost yourself the potential Patent rights for this idea! Almost a billionaire.