[Turtle]

dduckwessel, on 18 June 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:

Possibly I missed the response to this but wouldn't the above changes be considered as adaptation rather than evolving?

in this regard adaptation is evolution because the changes michaelangelica listed are inherited.

http://www.thefreedi....com/adaptation

dictionary said:

adaptation:
...
4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology an inherited or acquired modification in organisms that makes them better suited to survive and reproduce in a particular environment

[dduckwessel]

Turtle, on 18 June 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

in this regard adaptation is evolution because the changes michaelangelica listed are inherited.

http://www.thefreedi....com/adaptation

Land animals adapt to colder temperatures by growing fur - which is an adaptation, not evolution.

The human body is highly adaptable (even to poison administered in small doses over time). So then why would adapting to lactose tolerance be considered evolutionary?

In my mind adaptation happens for reasons of survival or availability (a certain food is available in abundance). Evolution on the other-hand is where an organism develops a higher trait (the development of speech), which is very different from adaptation. Otherwise why not just call evolution and adaptation the same thing!

[dduckwessel]

Michaelangelica, on 17 June 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

http://www.livescien...-mutations.html
When parents pass their genes down to their children, an average of 60 errors are introduced to the genetic code in the process, according to a new study. Any of those five dozen mutations could be the source of major differences in a person's appearance or behavior as compared to his or her parents — and altogether, the mistakes are the driving force of evolution.

Sixty mutations may sound like a lot, but according to the international team of geneticists behind the new research, it is actually fewer than expected. "We had previously estimated that parents would contribute an average of 100 to 200 mistakes to their child," Philip Awadalla, a geneticist at the University of Montreal who co-led the project, said in a press release. "Our genetic study, the first of its kind, shows that actually much fewer mistakes, or mutations, are made."

That means human evolution happens more slowly than they previously thought.

Why is the passing on of genes considered 'errors' and 'mistakes'? Is it because genetic code is weakened over time?

[Turtle]

dduckwessel, on 18 June 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

Land animals adapt to colder temperatures by growing fur - which is an adaptation, not evolution.

The human body is highly adaptable (even to poison administered in small doses over time). So then why would adapting to lactose tolerance be considered evolutionary?

In my mind adaptation happens for reasons of survival or availability (a certain food is available in abundance). Evolution on the other-hand is where an organism develops a higher trait (the development of speech), which is very different from adaptation. Otherwise why not just call evolution and adaptation the same thing!

i have come to have low confidence in what is "in your mind" vis à vi scientific understanding. that is a non-evolutionary (genetic evolution) adaptation of mine. you are conflating different definitions of the word "adaptation". it has a specific meaning in regards to evolution and i gave that; moreover the other definitions which i did not give do not apply in regards to evolution. neither does some different definition in your own mind apply. if you want to understand and discuss what is scientifically known about evolution then you must learn & adopt the terminology and methods that scientists use. you don't have to believe it, but you do have to learn it.

[dduckwessel]

I was simply asking for clarification of something I did not understand. I was curious because it seemed to me there are times when adaptation and evolution appear the same and I was wondering how scientists make the distinction. I didn't think it was an illogical question.

[Turtle]

dduckwessel, on 18 June 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

I was simply asking for clarification of something I did not understand. I was curious because it seemed to me there are times when adaptation and evolution appear the same and I was wondering how scientists make the distinction. I didn't think it was an illogical question.

yes well, i directly answered your question about the distinction scientists use and you then argued with my answer. no doubt you will argue with this one. arguing from ignorance may be a reason to argue, but it is no excuse.

[CraigD]

dduckwessel, on 18 June 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

In my mind adaptation happens for reasons of survival or availability (a certain food is available in abundance). Evolution on the other-hand is where an organism develops a higher trait (the development of speech), which is very different from adaptation.

I think you’re expressing a pretty widespread definition of the term “evolution”, one that’s roughtly synonymous with “progress” – pretty much what this variation of the Darwin fish

(my favorite ) is saying.

The term evolution has a lot of meanings, the most general being close to its etymological meaning “unfolding”. When someone give you a heads-up by saying “we have an evolving situation here”, this is what they mean.

As Turtle rightly notes, neither of these meaning is the scientific one for biological evolution, though. It’s fine to use the term evolution in lots of different contexts, but important not to confuse them with the scientific concept of biological evolution. Wikipedia’s wording of this definition, taken verbatim from biologists Douglas J Futuyma’s book Evolution is, IMHO, as good as any:

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

Note that this definition doesn’t require that trait changes occur due to preferential selection (eg: the long feathers of male peacocks, good-looks in humans, big gonads in primates, etc.), mutations, or any particular factor, only that the changes be heritable – in terrestrial biology, that the traits be due to genes, not, say, handed down via cultural traditions.

A really important misconception to dispel (I’ve lost counts of how many times folk have tried dispelling it at hypography) is that evolution always coincides with what we think of as progress, such as humans getting smarter, more peaceful, etc. Biological evolution is determined only by the successful passing on of genes (though “genes” may, possibly and controversially, involve some biochemistry in addition to those in RNA and DNA). Recent human evolution, for example, appears to have more involved the trait of being able to eat what we modern humans eat so much of – domestic grain and domestic animal milk – rather than the mix of hunted and gathered wild foods we ate for most of our pre-history, than a trait like bigger brains (human brains have actually been getting smaller for the past 20,000 to 30,000 years, though it’s unclear if this decreases, increases, or has no significant effect on intelligence – see this thread for more).

Quote

Otherwise why not just call evolution and adaptation the same thing!

Because the term adaptation refers to a central process of biological evolution, rather than being a synonym for it, in the same way that lift or wing are key concept of, not synonyms for aerodynamics.

Dduck, I think you should read through the wikipedia articles above on biological evolution and adaptation. As Turtle noted, you appear to simply be misunderstanding the conventional scientific meaning of these terms. A little (or a lot ) of honest study should cure that ill.

[dduckwessel]

Turtle, on 18 June 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

yes well, i directly answered your question about the distinction scientists use and you then argued with my answer. no doubt you will argue with this one. arguing from ignorance may be a reason to argue, but it is no excuse.

You always think I'm arguing with you Turtle when sometimes your (and others) answer appears contradictory to me so I have to ask for clarification. I guess I have to use Emoticons more often

I should explain this further: some people on Hypography write above my head and it's not that I'm being rude but that I am simply not understanding. Excepting of course when you're insulting me then your words become fewer and much clearer.

It's a communication thing and I don't expect anyone on Hypography to change but there are times I've had to do mental gymnastics just to keep up with some of you .

[dduckwessel]

CraigD, on 18 June 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

I think you’re expressing a pretty widespread definition of the term “evolution”, one that’s roughtly synonymous with “progress” – pretty much what this variation of the Darwin fish

(my favorite ) is saying.

Hum! I did read the links both you and Turtle provided. I understand biological adaptation very well but it seemed to me (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) that at times there is a very fine line between evolution and adaptation! I needed clarification of what I thought was a fine line, which it turns out they are quite different.

[charles brough]

CraigD, on 04 December 2007 - 01:54 PM, said:

Before this claim can be accepted, it’s necessary to show that it actually is the consensus of evolutionary biologists that H.Sapiens.S. has not evolved since becoming a species.

Aside from the difficulty of defining a distinct event of “becoming a species”, I don’t think this is the conseusus. For example, as described in this World Science article, and discussed in this hypography thread, scientists such as controversial but well-respected anthropologists Gregory Cochran have proposed that not only has human evolution in the past 200,000 years not slowed or stopped, but that it has dramatically accelerated.

Charles, what support can you present for your claim? Might your impression of the consensus among evolutionary biologists be based on out-of-date data?

I could not believe I had stated that, so I went back and checked! Yes, I had stated it even though I did not intend to say that. As you aver, it is not the consensus! I interpret the consensus to believe there have been slight changes in the last 40,000 years and that they, for lack of any other explanation (social science provides none), feel they must be overlooking something.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I'm not sure if this post belongs in this thread so if there is a better place for it, please let me know. Yes, even if it belongs in the "really stupid idea forum".
I recently saw a video about a proposal that said stars within a galaxy have enormous electrical currents flowing between them. Assuming the proof they showed using photos of distant galaxies were interpreted correctly, what struck me about the video was the shape of the flowing current, it was a spiral and that might not seem germain to this discussion but then again it might if it turns out that the shape of the genome is caused by minute electrical forces.
If the genome has an electrical component and if that component is an organizing component, might it not also be possible that things that have stabilized into actual objects which persist for a minimum duration have some sort of electrical 'signature'? And might not that signature effect the makeup of any genomes in the vicinity? Maybe some signatures resonate with specific genes? Here's an even sillier idea: what if a species came to dominate a geographic area so much so that it saturated that area. Is it possible that a predator to that species could be caused by it?
Such a view might offer a third alternative to how life changes instead of today's options of evolution or intelligent design. It would let us regard life as the effect of a cause.

[Qfwfq]

Molecular biology has a solid basis in chemistry which has a solid basis in quanrum physics. There's no need for vague analogies with galaxies, even if these currents were an established fact.

ldsoftwaresteve, on 12 December 2011 - 03:03 AM, said:

It would let us regard life as the effect of a cause.

We already do.

[Eclogite]

ldsoftwaresteve, on 12 December 2011 - 03:03 AM, said:

I recently saw a video about a proposal that said stars within a galaxy have enormous electrical currents flowing between them.

This sounds like the 'plasma universe' theory. I believe it is considered to be somewhere between extreme fringe and pseudoscience.

ldsoftwaresteve, on 12 December 2011 - 03:03 AM, said:

If the genome has an electrical component and if that component is an organizing component, might it not also be possible that things that have stabilized into actual objects which persist for a minimum duration have some sort of electrical 'signature'? And might not that signature effect the makeup of any genomes in the vicinity?

There seem to be rather too many ifs and mights in there, unsupported by any evidence. We can measure tiny electromagnetic fields. Is there any evidence at all that such fields have 'an organising ability'? Where would such an ability arise from? You seem to be envisaging a structured suite of electrical signals that impose development on existing genomes. What would the mechanism for this be? Not in detail, just a plausible overview of how this might work.

[jeremyb]

the way I see it, we are still evolving.

give us another hundred thousand years of sitting down at our computers or watching tv for long periods of time, and im pretty sure something is bound to change. evolution is time's twin, it never stops moving forward. sure it would slow down once the environment seems perfectly adequate, but things change, and evolution will be there to meet those changes.

after all, evolution can be seen each and every day, if this was untrue, all nationalities would look the same, the only question is, what nationality would we look like?

[Pincho Paxton]

I have evolved from humans, so we are still evolving. Check me out, an entirely new super brain!