Protocol Online logo
Top : Forum Archives: : Evolution and Darwinism

Mcnugget or the omelette - a profound evolutionary dilemma (Jul/31/2007 )

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

Hi!!
Why this thread was stopped!!! it was very interesting!!!!
What I had learned in science is that there is no absolute answer, specially in evolution...You can "see" some tendency, but that X organism evolute like this and Y evolve in a completely different way. The classic way to see evolution is the darwinian one, but there are lots of theories like the Theory of Neutral Evolution. So as I told before you could have one specie to evolve to another specie, but in the middle could have hybrids, subspecies, etc. some survive some dissapear. That's the reason that the phylogenetics trees have lotsss!!!! of branches.

-merlav-

One of the problems with trying to guess what mutations are needed to 'make' a new species, or how many are needed, or the effect of so-called 'neutral' mutations is that we have so few examples of the complete process at a molecular, ie sequence, level. I mean, which genes are we considering? Coding genes? Non-coding regulatory sequences? Small RNA sequences? Epigenetic differences?

The bad thing about that is we are scrabbling around in the dark. The really great thing about it is the fact that we can make pretty much whatever statements we like, and no-one can put us down!

Don't you just love ignorance!

As to the original question, clearly the answer is

















A chocolate shake, and fries. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

-swanny-

QUOTE (swanny @ Aug 9 2007, 02:46 AM)
The bad thing about that is we are scrabbling around in the dark. The really great thing about it is the fact that we can make pretty much whatever statements we like, and no-one can put us down!

Don't you just love ignorance!


you make it sound like a religion
actually with big parts of science like evolution (esp those we have to fight for against the nutters) it can become a case of believers vs non believers with people getting so caught up in the arguing they forget to look at the little details. this then leaves the theory open to attack not based on the general concept but on some minor point we glossed over in the scuffle.

this is why i love these discussions as we target the little things in an effort to outsmart the others (and to sound like we have a clue what we are talking about)

all hail casandra and her bizarre bendy brain - keep asking the questions

dom

-Dominic-

Don't you just love ignorance!

-Sch3ct3r-

QUOTE (Dominic @ Aug 9 2007, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE (swanny @ Aug 9 2007, 02:46 AM)
The bad thing about that is we are scrabbling around in the dark. The really great thing about it is the fact that we can make pretty much whatever statements we like, and no-one can put us down!

Don't you just love ignorance!


you make it sound like a religion


To some it is. And like religion, there are some who speak and act without thought, and some whose claims are well-supported.

-swanny-

QUOTE (dpo @ Aug 3 2007, 04:52 PM)
The Protochicken article doesn't really give any answer to your first question: how many mutations are required to make a new species. The only conclusion I could find is that most chickens as we now them today are alike.
So I'm still quite confident with my one (well, maybe two) mutations to create a new species. And I'm not alone with this!

I found this article about the flower colour of monkeyflowers (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-23323.html):


Regarding your last question, I don't think evolution is necessarily progressive. Evolution 'provides' the best organism for the current situation and in some points (although I don't know of any examples yet, I'll think about) this may lead to an organism which is less complex. To the observer it may look like the complexity is increasing, but this is because you rarely see all stages of the evolutionary process and if you can't compare the true ancestor to the result, it's hard to analyze the difference in complexity.


I agree with you, parasitism is a good example, although so-called "high-evolved" or "apomorph", many of the parasitic species have reduced and simplified structural plans (e.g., tape worms).

If one mutation is sufficient for a new species it depends perhaps on the definition of species. In the classical one, the biological species definition, one mutation might be sufficient, if the two taxa after the mutation can not reproduce for whatever reason (actually no mutation is necessary, there are other evolutionary forces for separation as genetic drift or assortative mating). In phylogenetics it is more difficult, as you has to find a separation, a border, when one species can defined as a new species. This can be difficult as the change might occur gradually, with many linking OTUs. Coming back to the chicken problem, scientists following the biological definition can say: Wildtype chicken and domesticated Kentucky-fried-chicken are different species as they cannot reproduce (perhaps due to changed or missing behaviours, or one mutation that changed the chromosomes that they are not fitting anymore, or a point mutation that changed to pheromone bouquet, or whatever). The scientist following the phylogenetic definition can say, there are no morphological or not sufficient differences in the mtDNA COI-region to separate them as two species...here it is a question of statistics and good molecular markers.
And there is another difficulty, once I read that mutation rates in most organisms are too small to exert any influence on evolution (I have to find the paper, I don't know where I read it)...

-hobglobin-

Couldn’t I take a short water-filled summer break without coming back and getting the surprise of my life by being hailed by Dominic? Where I left off, wasn’t I having a polite, peaceful, civilised discussion with dpo about the poor chicken and the even less luckier egg while we're on a race to a veteran status?

How did my thread then got derailed into an “argument from ignorance vs argument from arrogance” exchange of povs? If I take credit for all the ignorance (soo intricately woven in this thread wacko.gif ), can we just go back on track wherever that may be?

And Dominic, as scientists we do tend to use concise and precise language, did you mean “good” bizarre or “bad” bizarre? Do I have an “empty” bendy or “brimming” bendy brain? But with all that ignorance, don’t you wonder if I even have a brain at all? Should I feel affronted or flattered by your “bizarre bendy-brained” label? And one last question, whatever happened to the farmer? Didn’t you throw him into the mix? Ooops did I just outsmart you or outdumb you? Can I already stop with the questions, I'm tired of emboldening the question marks??? BTW you pack a mean ad hominem Dominic and if I could just return the compliment, you sounded like an 'anti-religious nutter' nutter yourself.



@dpo (if you’re still following this thread): weren’t we successful in carrying out a decent
conversation without going into an evo/devo-‘God of the gaps’ debate then torching everything else in the process? Can we do a reload?

@swanny: I may have owned up to all the ignorance in this thread but on this I'm claiming authority.....it ain't the chocolate shake and fries ....it's the Oreo Blizzard and poutine biggrin.gif


impertinent even or rather especially in ignorance,

casandra

-casandra-

QUOTE (casandra @ Aug 13 2007, 11:17 PM)
@swanny: I may have owned up to all the ignorance in this thread but on this I'm claiming authority.....it ain't the chocolate shake and fries ....it's the Oreo Blizzard and poutine biggrin.gif


impertinent even or rather especially in ignorance,

casandra

Only in Canada, my dear casandra, only in Canada. tongue.gif wacko.gif

BTW, what is a poutine? It sounds like... well, I really can't imagine what it sounds like. Is it pou-tine as in POO-Tine, or as in POW-Tine? Not that I'm francophobic ('cos I think of them as "French" fries...)

-swanny-

QUOTE (swanny @ Aug 10 2007, 03:11 AM)
To some it is. And like religion, there are some who speak and act without thought, and some whose claims are well-supported.


I don't know how you can support claims for religion as it is a matter of faith. For the evolution, I agree that some people see it as some kind of faith, because we don't know all the answers yet, we have to accept some things as such. A major difference between the science of evolution and religion is that scientist are able to rethink their opinion, based on the available data (as also described in Richard Dawkins' lastest book). The recent publication in Nature (last week) about the fact that two hominoids lived together instead of sequentially will probably be used by creationists to say: hey look at those silly scientists, they have no idea what really happened. Scientists are not afraid to adapt their vision if conflicting evidence is proposed.
For your procastrination, there is a story about Socrates meeting Jesus (http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm) where Socrates brings on arguments why God is not as good as Jesus wants everybody to believe. I don't think any religious person will be persuaded by the arguments of Socrates, because religious people are not very easily persuaded by arguments.

QUOTE (casandra @ Aug 13 2007, 03:17 PM)
Couldn’t I take a short water-filled summer break without coming back and getting the surprise of my life by being hailed by Dominic? Where I left off, wasn’t I having a polite, peaceful, civilised discussion with dpo about the poor chicken and the even less luckier egg while we're on a race to a veteran status?

@dpo (if you’re still following this thread): weren’t we successful in carrying out a decent
conversation without going into an evo/devo-‘God of the gaps’ debate then torching everything else in the process? Can we do a reload?


casandra, I hope you enjoyed the holiday.

I agree with hobglobin that the definition of 'species' strongly depends on the field you're in, making the question as to how many mutations are necessary to create a new species a different question depending on your definition of species.

-dpo-

Hi Cassadra! This thread is now an interesting collage...and we can still add more post and increase the score...maybe soon will reach at least a 100. So continue asking....please.

Swanny: Sorry, but I dont think that the majority of us love ignorance....if we are scientist some with a PhD (that means love knowledge) is because the majority of us hate ignorance and want to KNOW.

Following again the thread
How we define a specie have change a lot with the molecular biology, in the past the tool was just to observe the physical characteristics, now we see the DNA sequence and for that reason some scientist want to put the wolf and the dog in the same specie for example. The important thing is that species have 2 ways evolve or dissapear, there many mechanism that contributes for that evolution (genetic drift, bottlenecks, founders events, etc). After the debate of who came first chicken or egg and how it maybe evolve now I have several questions: is the Hommo sapiens evolving and in a future will have another Hommo whatever or will the specie perish and then end of story? If the H. sapiens destroy the eviroment who will be the "king"of the nature...roaches??? (they are pretty tolerant to extreme enviroment).

-merlav-

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next