Evolution

[Guadalupe]

What form of “Evolution” do you Prefer?

 

 

:surprise:

[Boerseun]

"Unghh?" - Early Neanderthal

"Huh?" - Austrilopithecus Afarensis

"Please elaborate on your question" - Homo Sapiens

[Guadalupe]

Hi! Boerseun. :gift:

 

 

"Unghh?" - Early Neanderthal

"Huh?" - Austrilopithecus Afarensis

"Please elaborate on your question" - Homo Sapiens

 

Does the form of Evolution come from the outside or from within the creations original design?

 

:surprise:

[Boerseun]

I'd say that evolution is a species' response to environmental pressure. I suppose that'll make it external, although I don't quite get the gist of your question. Evolution is also a species' response to predators, whereby predators gain new skills which will act as an evolutionary sieve on the prey, and the survivors will adapt new techniques in evading the predators - who in turn would have to invent new strategies to catch the prey, which would then have to invent new defenses, etc.

 

Plants have evolved certain toxins so animals wouldn't eat them. So us slinky bastard animals have invented livers to get over that hurdle. It's a continuous process, but I'm still not sure I get your question.

[Tormod]

Oh no. Another poll on evolution? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

[Boerseun]

Tell me about it...

[coldcreation]

Tell me about it...

 

The question is not whether or not evolution exists. There is an overabundance of evidence that it does. The question is how does a modification occur in the DNA (if indeed that is where it occurs) that can then be transmitted to the next generation.

 

Evolution can be seen first hand. Take a scrawny wimp, for example, who's had enough of the bully kicking sand in his face at the beach (yeah the old cliché). What does he do? For the next couple of years he pumps iron three times a week (upper and lower body). Next time he goes to the beach the tides have turned. OK. So far so good.

 

The questions one could ask are: How then is the DNA modified? How many years (or generations) will it be before the offspring of x-wimp (aka the beast, now) will be born with the propensity to be large (or larger the wimp was)?

 

Check this out. I believe that will power plays a fundamental role in evolution.

 

CC

[Boerseun]

Nope.

 

Some breeds of dogs' tails are routinely clipped at birth, for hundreds of years now. Their puppies are still born with full tails.

 

Evolution happens through accidental genetic mutation, and the offspring with beneficial mutations (however few they might be) will have an advantage over the rest. They will be more likely to breed, and the process by which the adaptions are selected for or against, is called natural selection.

 

Artificial selection, on the other hand, is where humans take any arbitrary animal or plant, and select the offspring for desired attributes. Thus we end up with sheep carrying more wool they can actually live with if it goes unsheared for any length of time. We also end up with cows giving more milk than a calf could normally consume.

 

But will-power has absolutely nada to do with it. The wimp you talk about can do body-building till he's twice the size of Schwarzenegger, it won't make one iota's difference to his offsprings' capabilities. They'll have to go to gym by themselves.

[CraigD]

Take a scrawny wimp, for example, who's had enough of the bully kicking sand in his face at the beach (yeah the old cliché). What does he do? For the next couple of years he pumps iron three times a week (upper and lower body). Next time he goes to the beach the tides have turned. OK. So far so good.

 

The questions one could ask are: How then is the DNA modified?

The mainstream Biological answer is, I think, that DNA is not modified by behavior. No amount of exercise will alter the scrawny wimp’s DNA.

 

There’s fairly compelling theoretical and observed evidence that one’s genome – the massive (for a single molecule) DNA molecule replicated in nearly every cell of our bodies - doesn’t change during our gestations or lifetimes in a way that causes genes to change or new genes be created significantly. Each chromosome shortens with age, but only in a zone at each end that appears to exist for this purpose – the telomere. Genes are continuously “switched” on and off – caused to start or stop creating (expressing) proteins - in a complicated way. An uncounted number of retroviruses insert themselves into our genome, not many, but some, it’s believed, so successfully that our children inherit these additions. However, I’m aware of no evidence that acquired traits, such as knowledge acquired through study or good physical condition acquired through exercise, are ever coded into our DNA. Thus, a very educated person’s offspring will not be born very educated, nor will an athlete’s become an athlete unless they exercise, just as in Boerseun’s example, cropped-tail dogs don’t have tailless puppies.

 

Random mutations – changes in the genome due to damage from external energy or matter, or failures of the cell’s genetic “machinery” – appear to occur, but only rarely result in the creation of beneficial genes. There appears to be no behavior that a human can engage in – exercise, medical treatment or mental discipline – to encourage beneficial random mutations. Rather, the best one can do is practice behaviors that minimize the chance of harmful mutations – protect oneself from excessive sunlight, avoid ingesting carcinogens and teratogens, etc.

 

There are certainly genes that code for size, maximum attainable physical strength, stamina, and coordination – the various traits needed to become a top-class athlete in many sports. More controversially, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that the potential for great creative or analytic intelligence is also coded for by genes. However it appears that, if an individual lacks these genes, and wishes to acquire them for their offspring, the only path currently available to find them from a reproductive partner, and hope that they dominate in some of their offspring.

I believe that will power plays a fundamental role in evolution.

I agree.

 

Willpower – the personality trait of strong determination and discipline – can certainly play a major role in success in the path I describe above. Attracting a mate who is a world-class athlete, intellectual genius, movie star, etc., typically requires that one have desirable acquired traits – good physical condition, education, as well as non-physical traits such as intellectual and/or financial success. With a few exceptions, such as inherited financial wealth and/or celebrity status, and luck, having these traits requires unusual willpower.

 

Progress in Molecular Biology offer a new possibility for acquiring desired genes. It may be possible in the near future to artificially alter embryonic, or eventually even adult (somatic) DNA to have these genes, even in such a way that the genes are inherited without artificial invention (become part of ones germ DNA). “Will power” in this sense is a more complicated thing than the ordinary sense of the phrase – here, it means sufficient scientific study to develop such techniques, and the social skill to make them acceptable to society and its governments. Strong scientific arguments can be made both for and against “designer genes”

 

In conclusion, I agree that willpower – and many additional personality traits – play an important role in evolution, particularly that of humans and other primates, but in a less direct way than coldcreation suggests.

[TheBigDog]

Oh no. Another poll on evolution? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

I havn't been around here so long, so this is still fresh for me.

 

Evolution is driven by selective inability to reproduce, usually by death or weakness. Only actions that effect the reproduction of a species play a part in evolution. It is both external and internal. External forces challenge a species, internal abilities succeed or fail in the face of that external challenge. The survivors pass that strength forward to another generation.

 

In the example of the bully, if he killed the kid on the beach, or castrated him, it would be the end of that genetic line. Instead he awoke the inner ability of that kid. That in turn made the kid come back and kick bully butt. But in the end no evolution has taken place, because both parties survived to reproduce.

 

Where humans are separated from all species is our ability to include abstract lessons in our collection of abilities. And to project or control power with intellect instead of just brute strength.

 

If anything, as we advance our technology, we are weakening our genetic makeup. 40 years ago if a woman and man could not conceive a child the only option they had was to adopt. Now we can get a wooden post pregnant. But that just means that the traits of infertility become more prevalent, and each generation relies more and more on technology to reproduce. Likewise, as we treat childhood diseases that used to be fatal, we add that genetic 'weakness' to the gene pool. The point is that modern medicine is having an effect on human evolution that is making us dependent upon modern technology. I don't foresee that trend ending, and I don't believe that it should.

 

I guess that makes my pick... 3. It is a combination of external and internal.

 

Bill

[the romantic cynic]

well that's kinda a narrow minded question. what about all thte people the don't prefer evolution, which one are we supposed to pick ?????????

 

 

help i'm so confused

[InfiniteNow]

Oh no.

Another

poll on evolution? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Yeah... can I retract the poll I started? I mean, seriously... :surprise:

[Guadalupe]

well that's kinda a narrow minded question. what about all thte people the don't prefer evolution, which one are we supposed to pick ?????????

 

 

help i'm so confused

 

 

Hi! the romantic cynic. :gift:

 

According to what is out there, the word “evolution” is not a word created by Darwin. The word, “evolution”, came from the Latin definition meaning, “a process of change in a certain direction”. Nowhere, does it say, that the word, “evolution”, to mean, “a process of change in a certain direction from within”. The key word, is “within”. Evolution, is not a word, that we should fear, but to understand it’s origin, it’s true meaning.

 

 

:surprise:

[Save the Chief]

Hi! the romantic cynic. :lol:

 

According to what is out there, the word “evolution” is not a word created by Darwin. The word, “evolution”, came from the Latin definition meaning, “a process of change in a certain direction”. Nowhere, does it say, that the word, “evolution”, to mean, “a process of change in a certain direction from within”. The key word, is “within”. Evolution, is not a word, that we should fear, but to understand it’s origin, it’s true meaning.

 

 

:hihi:

 

The original definition of evolution made no mention of it occurring "within" due to that fact that at the time it was published Darwin had no idea who Gregor Mendel was and in fact had never heard of the concept of a gene. The more "recent" definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency in a population from one generation to the next, however, specifically identifies evolution as a process of genetics/natural selection, and thereby internal.

[Guadalupe]

Hi! Save the Chief. ;)

 

Welcome to Hypography Forums and may the knowledge you seek help you evolve in the education of “Evolution”. :hihi:

 

 

 

The original definition of evolution made no mention of it occurring "within" due to that fact that at the time it was published Darwin had no idea who Gregor Mendel was and in fact had never heard of the concept of a gene. The more "recent" definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency in a population from one generation to the next, however, specifically identifies evolution as a process of genetics/natural selection, and thereby internal.

 

 

May I suggest looking up two of my laws, “Law of Creation” & “Law of Evolution”. Simply right click on Guadalupe and click on "View Public Profile" and then click on “Treads”. You should be able to find them there.

 

 

:lol:

[Save the Chief]

Hi! Save the Chief. :cup:

 

Welcome to Hypography Forums and may the knowledge you seek help you evolve in the education of “Evolution”. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

May I suggest looking up two of my laws, “Law of Creation” & “Law of Evolution”. Simply right click on Guadalupe and click on "View Public Profile" and then click on “Treads”. You should be able to find them there.

 

 

:)

 

 

oh no i have read both...both interesting theories, but i don't necessarily agree with either. In the law of creation you make the assumption that the goal of evolution and "modification" is to reach one fully optimized end. The point of evolution is not optimization, it is simply modification and adaptation to a particular (and changing) environment. We know for a fact that particular phenotypes of creatures are selected for to suit environmental conditions. Simply look at Darwin's Finch's, Turtles on the Galapagos, pepper months, or any number of other documented cases of natural selection leading towards adaptations such as mimicry or better machinery for aquiring foodstuffs. As far as your post on evolution, I'm intrigued, but i can't really make a decision based on what you have posted. Sounds more like a religious inference without any data in the thread to back it up

[dagaz]

Natural selection happens through the external environment favouring certain characteristics over others. But those characteristics are created by internal genetics.