Total Posts:107|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Natural selection and new species.

Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 10:48:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Stop trying to think of it as "new" for starters. The species that is evolving is the same as its parents, same as its grater grand parents. When it is called a different species is not some magic spot.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 10:55:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 10:48:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Stop trying to think of it as "new" for starters. The species that is evolving is the same as its parents, same as its grater grand parents. When it is called a different species is not some magic spot.

Same as parent but add the beginning of an eye, or the beginning of a wing, that's what I was more referring to. A species evolving into something new, changing its kind eventually into something completely different.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:35:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones

Well... Lungs, for example, working outside of the water began in... Fish. This was a very basic thing, but lead to fish being able to survive in little water. You get trtapods, reptiles, amphibians etc.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:37:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones

This is not bad for some lung background
http://www.paleolibrarian.info...
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:38:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:35:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones

Well... Lungs, for example, working outside of the water began in... Fish. This was a very basic thing, but lead to fish being able to survive in little water. You get trtapods, reptiles, amphibians etc.

Right but fish don't have lungs they have gills. How does natural selection make a gills into lungs.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:39:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:37:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones

This is not bad for some lung background
http://www.paleolibrarian.info...

Thanx Ill have a look at that
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:48:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:37:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones

This is not bad for some lung background
http://www.paleolibrarian.info...

I think ive actually seen that video before. The article says that it happened and that there are certain theoretical evidences that are plausible and attacks the creation stand point. But it doesn't actually say how it works. Was an interesting read though. There is a good question asked in the article
"Where is the evidence to support the evolution of bladders to lungs in the first place? In my mind this is as epic a journey as the moon landings."


I thought after this a more empirical answer would be given. Some guesses as to how are given. I
Is there observable evidence of natural selection creating new species?
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:01:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I suppose I have to question natural selection as a mechanism all together. How exactly does it work even within a species. Are chance mutations natural selection?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:17:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:48:36 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:37:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones

This is not bad for some lung background
http://www.paleolibrarian.info...

I think ive actually seen that video before. The article says that it happened and that there are certain theoretical evidences that are plausible and attacks the creation stand point. But it doesn't actually say how it works. Was an interesting read though. There is a good question asked in the article
"Where is the evidence to support the evolution of bladders to lungs in the first place? In my mind this is as epic a journey as the moon landings."


I thought after this a more empirical answer would be given. Some guesses as to how are given. I
Is there observable evidence of natural selection creating new species?

I am happy you read it. I may look for more if you like.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:18:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:01:19 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
I suppose I have to question natural selection as a mechanism all together. How exactly does it work even within a species. Are chance mutations natural selection?

Mutation is random. Mutation happens, we agree on that right?

Natural selection is NOT random. It favors some traits over another - "fittest" right?
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:47:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:18:55 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:01:19 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
I suppose I have to question natural selection as a mechanism all together. How exactly does it work even within a species. Are chance mutations natural selection?

Mutation is random. Mutation happens, we agree on that right?
Yes I agree mutation happen. Im still trying to figure out if its random.
Natural selection is NOT random. It favors some traits over another - "fittest" right?
Favors traits that lead to more reproduction.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:41:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones

Lungs are modified swim bladders that are modified guys that are modified tubes.

Wings are modified arms and feathers are modified scales.

Arms and legs are modified lobed find which are modified bony fins which are modified fins.

Eyes are modified pin hole cameras which are modified light sensitive indentations which are modified light sensitive cells, which are modified cells.

There isn't really any such thing as new in evolution, almost everything is just reused and a modified something else to some degree.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:54:57 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Simple, every generation gets a large number of mutations and changes. Over the that difference grows and grows until eventually they are very different.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:59:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:41:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:25:36 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:58:28 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Let me put it this way. Where we see branching in the tree, where two distinct species have separated from one-another. All reasonable "points", but this is not like today one species became another. That is... not what is being said.

Yes I agree and am not implying any Goldschmidt type Saltation

Well then, I think you have it. Stack enough change over time, and it is reasonable to call the collection of changes a new species, right?

But some change makes sense. A bird getting a longer beak due to dietary reasons makes sense. A bird already has a beak to modify. A species developing lungs is something different. How does natural selection fit in with something like that. How does it actually work I guess is what Im asking. To develop new features in the species, not modifying existing ones

Lungs are modified swim bladders that are modified guys that are modified tubes.

Wings are modified arms and feathers are modified scales.

Arms and legs are modified lobed find which are modified bony fins which are modified fins.

Eyes are modified pin hole cameras which are modified light sensitive indentations which are modified light sensitive cells, which are modified cells.

There isn't really any such thing as new in evolution, almost everything is just reused and a modified something else to some degree.

So natural selection which is not random finds needs and things to help a given species reproduce like the things mentioned above. This is done gradually by natural selection. But natural selection doesn't really do anything its the mutations that perform the work correct? And these are supposed to be random chance variations?

So if the actual work (mutation) is done randomly how is it natural selection?
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 3:01:46 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:54:57 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Simple, every generation gets a large number of mutations and changes. Over the that difference grows and grows until eventually they are very different.

Mutations are random though, is that natural selection? Natural selection seems to be intelligent if you will or at least instinctual as to its need for survival. That's not random is it?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:02:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 3:01:46 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:54:57 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Simple, every generation gets a large number of mutations and changes. Over the that difference grows and grows until eventually they are very different.

Mutations are random though, is that natural selection?

Yes they are. A few are good, a few are bad, and most are neutral.

Natural selection seems to be intelligent if you will or at least instinctual as to its need for survival.

I don't see how natural selection is intelligent or instinctual. Animals are intelligent and have instinct but natural selection does not.

Natural selection is the fact that some traits allow animals to survive better than others and that those traits that better allow survival will be seen more and more in future generations because they will be more likely to reproduce.

That's not random is it?

Natural selection is not random. It has direction.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 5:07:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 4:02:22 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:01:46 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:54:57 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Simple, every generation gets a large number of mutations and changes. Over the that difference grows and grows until eventually they are very different.

Mutations are random though, is that natural selection?

Yes they are. A few are good, a few are bad, and most are neutral.

Natural selection seems to be intelligent if you will or at least instinctual as to its need for survival.

I don't see how natural selection is intelligent or instinctual. Animals are intelligent and have instinct but natural selection does not.

Natural selection is the fact that some traits allow animals to survive better than others and that those traits that better allow survival will be seen more and more in future generations because they will be more likely to reproduce.

That's not random is it?

Natural selection is not random. It has direction.

Natural selection has direction but natural selection does no work. Natural selection does not make a fin into an arm. Random chance mutations make a fin into an arm. But random chance mutations are random, so how do they know?

If a fish needs its gills turned into lungs so it can get to the plants on land for food it need random chance mutations to mutate the swim bladder. How does it know? If its random why a lung? a species without one would have no idea what to so with a lung once it got one. It would never attempt to leave the water would it?
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:29:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/15/2016 5:07:20 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 4:02:22 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:01:46 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:54:57 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Simple, every generation gets a large number of mutations and changes. Over the that difference grows and grows until eventually they are very different.

Mutations are random though, is that natural selection?

Yes they are. A few are good, a few are bad, and most are neutral.

Natural selection seems to be intelligent if you will or at least instinctual as to its need for survival.

I don't see how natural selection is intelligent or instinctual. Animals are intelligent and have instinct but natural selection does not.

Natural selection is the fact that some traits allow animals to survive better than others and that those traits that better allow survival will be seen more and more in future generations because they will be more likely to reproduce.

That's not random is it?

Natural selection is not random. It has direction.

Natural selection has direction but natural selection does no work. Natural selection does not make a fin into an arm. Random chance mutations make a fin into an arm. But random chance mutations are random, so how do they know?

If a fish needs its gills turned into lungs so it can get to the plants on land for food it need random chance mutations to mutate the swim bladder. How does it know? If its random why a lung? a species without one would have no idea what to so with a lung once it got one. It would never attempt to leave the water would it?

The process is incremental. Evolution has no purpose or direction. The only thing that matters is whether the mutation provides some survival advantage to an organism. If so, that gene spreads in the population. If a slightly longer neck provided an advantage to the proto-giraffe then the gene mutation responsible for it spread. If a slightly longer neck was a survival factor (more access to tree leaves) then a slightly longer neck again would provide a greater advantage. The process continued until we get to the giraffe of today. There reaches a point where an even longer neck would have more negatives (balance, blood circulation, etc.) than positives.

Same with a fin turning into a foot. It started in fish which spent a lot of their time in shallow water and it was incremental.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Same again with a swim bladder into lungs. The swim bladder didn't mutate into a set of lungs in one magical mutation.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

One organ which no longer serves a purpose (for fish living in shallow water) is appropriated by evolution for another purpose. There is no intent here, it was just a relatively easy path for mutation/natural selection to take.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 11:48:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 10:48:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Stop trying to think of it as "new" for starters. The species that is evolving is the same as its parents, same as its grater grand parents. When it is called a different species is not some magic spot.

The definition of species is arbitrary, in other words. 'Arbitrary' doesn't mean wrong, or bogus, but it does mean arbitrary. The sentient pattern maker decides where to draw the venn diagrams. They are not inherent in the data.

I'm just thinking the following based on the coin toss thread we were both in: There's a gambler's fallacy baked into evolutionary thinking. And that fallacy is that grand improbabilities can be made more probably by breaking them into smaller groupings. It's the fallacy that you don't have to flip 100 heads in a row, you just have to flip 10 heads in a row, 10 times. Ten heads in a row - that can happen, right? See talkorigins for some classic examples of this fallacy.

And how does this fallacy manifest itself in evolutionary thinking? It manifests itself in scorning any statement of the big picture - "man evolved from primordial goop by chance" - and insisting on an infinite series of small steps, such as 'new species' being defined as specimens that can't breed with their cousins any more.
This space for rent.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:27:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:59:07 AM, Danb6177 wrote:

So natural selection which is not random finds needs and things to help a given species reproduce like the things mentioned above.

No, nothing is "found" by evolution to help a species. That implies purpose. Mutations happen randomly (a few humans each year are born with six toes and fingers for example). Most of the time the mutation is lethal and immediately disappears. Some are neutral. Beneficial mutations are much rarer but when they arise, if they make the organism better adapted to its environment (more successful at survival and breeding) then it should be obvious that the gene responsible will spread in the population. Therefore natural selection "favours" beneficial genes through reproductive success and is non-random. Only "good" gene mutations multiply through the population. Non-random but without intent.

This is done gradually by natural selection. But natural selection doesn't really do anything its the mutations that perform the work correct? And these are supposed to be random chance variations?

See above. Mutations are random but their spread or not through a population is non-random. That is because of natural selection.

So if the actual work (mutation) is done randomly how is it natural selection?

Deleterious mutations cause the immediate death of the organism or make it infertile or less likely to survive to breeding age. Beneficial mutations increase the survivability of the organism and its chance to reproduce. It should be obvious that this is the very definition of natural selection. Nature "chooses" those genes which make an organism a better fit for its environment. There is no actual "choosing" of course, it is an entirely automatic process just by virtue of the way genes are passed along in reproduction.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:37:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 5:07:20 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 4:02:22 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:01:46 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:54:57 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Simple, every generation gets a large number of mutations and changes. Over the that difference grows and grows until eventually they are very different.

Mutations are random though, is that natural selection?

Yes they are. A few are good, a few are bad, and most are neutral.

Natural selection seems to be intelligent if you will or at least instinctual as to its need for survival.

I don't see how natural selection is intelligent or instinctual. Animals are intelligent and have instinct but natural selection does not.

Natural selection is the fact that some traits allow animals to survive better than others and that those traits that better allow survival will be seen more and more in future generations because they will be more likely to reproduce.

That's not random is it?

Natural selection is not random. It has direction.

Natural selection has direction but natural selection does no work. Natural selection does not make a fin into an arm.

It selects the mutations that makes the fin into the arm.

Random chance mutations make a fin into an arm. But random chance mutations are random, so how do they know?

Random mutations are random but when natural selection are selecting the good ones then natural selection combined with mutations can create new thing because of mutations and are not random because of natural selection.

We have seen bacteria evolve the new ability to eat nylon because of natural selection and mutations. The mutations was a fusion of two existing genes, and natural selection selected it because it gave them an abundant new food source that better allowed the bacteria to survive. We have seen this ability evolve in nature and in the lab under close study.

If a fish needs its gills turned into lungs so it can get to the plants on land for food it need random chance mutations to mutate the swim bladder.

Actually we see fish with lungs today. They are called lungfish.

How does it know? If its random why a lung?

What happened is that a long time ago some fish lived where there was little water and being able to breathe if they were caught outside the water would be very very useful. So mutations that made the swim bladder more like a lung were selected by natural selection since they better allowed the fish to survive and those fish where more likely to produce offspring so we saw more and more of the offspring with more more lung-like swim bladders.

a species without one would have no idea what to so with a lung once it got one. It would never attempt to leave the water would it?

Lungs don't require any thought, we just breathe. Same goes for lungfish. It may not have had a choice to leave the water. Some fish species in Thailand live in small ponds and have to jump to the next pond before their current one dries up.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:16:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:27:21 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:59:07 AM, Danb6177 wrote:

So natural selection which is not random finds needs and things to help a given species reproduce like the things mentioned above.

No, nothing is "found" by evolution to help a species. That implies purpose. Mutations happen randomly (a few humans each year are born with six toes and fingers for example). Most of the time the mutation is lethal and immediately disappears. Some are neutral. Beneficial mutations are much rarer but when they arise, if they make the organism better adapted to its environment (more successful at survival and breeding) then it should be obvious that the gene responsible will spread in the population.

Well, yeah, that does seem obvious. The problem is that new features don't appear with one mutation. (let me elaborate on that below) So how does selection know what a mutation will do in the future, after it combines with thousands of other mutations required to produce something novel?

This is the 8000 pound elephant in the evolution parlor. Obviously there is no way for natural selection to be predictive. There has to be a whole other principle at work in evolution, and until it is discovered I code name it "Pure F'ing Magic".

So - the elaboration/clarification: Someone might say that one mutation can produce a whole new feature, like a sixth toe. But that's only if the coding for toes is already in the genome. To assemble the base pairs for coding a toe - that's obviously a massive job, a long series of mutations, if indeed a toe could have formed that way at all. So building new things from scratch (and everything in the ecosystem was new at one point), that's the Pure F'ing Magic principle.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:23:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:37:16 PM, distraff wrote:
...

Lungs don't require any thought, we just breathe.

lol! They do require a brain, though, I'm pretty sure. And muscles to pump them, and sensors to tell the brain to decide how fast to pump them. They need blood supply for their own maintenance, as well as oxygenating the blood supply. They need cilia to keep themselves clean, and a powerful cough reflex for accidental ingestion. Handily, the lungs are routed through the digestive system, so waste products can be neutralized by stomach acids and compacted with the rest of our waste products. I could probably go on all day about the system level complexities of running the breath system.

But it all just happened. Nothing is too hard for the Pure F'ing Magic principle.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:26:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 11:48:26 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:48:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 10:41:09 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Natural selection makes sense to me in evolution within a species. How does natural selection work as a mechanism for new species? How does a species through natural selection in its efforts to reproduce and survive change into something else?

I have more to say/ask about this but was looking for a simple starting point.

Stop trying to think of it as "new" for starters. The species that is evolving is the same as its parents, same as its grater grand parents. When it is called a different species is not some magic spot.

The definition of species is arbitrary, in other words. 'Arbitrary' doesn't mean wrong, or bogus, but it does mean arbitrary. The sentient pattern maker decides where to draw the venn diagrams. They are not inherent in the data.

There is clear branching, there are species that split and can not interbreed. However, saying there is some "line" that is cross is not accurate. The day that the old species is no longer the old one, but the new. That line is... somewhat arbitrary - soft.


I'm just thinking the following based on the coin toss thread we were both in: There's a gambler's fallacy baked into evolutionary thinking. And that fallacy is that grand improbabilities can be made more probably by breaking them into smaller groupings. It's the fallacy that you don't have to flip 100 heads in a row, you just have to flip 10 heads in a row, 10 times. Ten heads in a row - that can happen, right? See talkorigins for some classic examples of this fallacy.

I don't see this problem at all. As I noted in the thread, what is the probability that you get a HTTHHTHHTH vs HHHHHHHHHH? Now, unlike the tail flip sequence, add selection. Say in either of the sequences, as I get the matching H or T to complete the series, how much does the probability change to complete the sequence?


And how does this fallacy manifest itself in evolutionary thinking? It manifests itself in scorning any statement of the big picture - "man evolved from primordial goop by chance" - and insisting on an infinite series of small steps, such as 'new species' being defined as specimens that can't breed with their cousins any more.

I am missing your point with this last bit.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:41:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:26:16 PM, TBR wrote:
...

I don't see this problem at all. As I noted in the thread, what is the probability that you get a HTTHHTHHTH vs HHHHHHHHHH? Now, unlike the tail flip sequence, add selection. Say in either of the sequences, as I get the matching H or T to complete the series, how much does the probability change to complete the sequence?


Yes, there is a low probability of any particular sequence, but a 1:1 possibility of some sequence occurring if you flip the penny n times. But in order to have a sequence at all, you have to have a penny, a flipper, and an observer. So, real world, there is no guarantee of a sequence of penny flips at all. Likewise, I don't necessarily see any statistical probability of life occurring, at all. I think it's a fallacy to presume there is any statistical likelihood of abiogenesis or evolution, at all. Only things that can be shown to be possible can be handicapped. There is no statistical likelihood of rolling a 13 with two dice, for instance.


And how does this fallacy manifest itself in evolutionary thinking? It manifests itself in scorning any statement of the big picture - "man evolved from primordial goop by chance" - and insisting on an infinite series of small steps, such as 'new species' being defined as specimens that can't breed with their cousins any more.

I am missing your point with this last bit.

Well, the whole root of the theory is the single mutation. Single mutation, that can happen, right? Shoot, we see it happening all the time. So therefore any arbitrary sequence of mutations is statistically possible. But that's a fallacy. Nothing can be extrapolated ad infinitum. Everything collapses under its own weight at some point. Darwin's concept is really only proven for a single mutation, everything beyond that is speculation.
This space for rent.