The Myth of Natural Selection

[ronthepon]

1) in the presence of a predator, frog/tadpole eggs can hatch at later times:

 

 

..... Flatworms (Phagocotus gracilis) were used as

predators or predator chemical cues upon salamander larvae (Ambystoma texanum and Ambystoma barbouri). The presence of the flatworms and their cues induced the eggs to delay their hatching time. This resulted in larger, and more advanced hatchlings. This finding supports the earlier field observations that the flatworm preyed heavily on smaller, less developed hatchlings. This shift in hatch time is adaptive and supports

greater hatchling survival (Sih and Moore 1993).

 

Any evolutionists care to explain this phenomenon? This is just incredible if you think about it.

Yeah, it's an excellent adaptation. Wonder why it makes the theory of natural selection seem like crap. To me, it reinforces the theory.

 

Two possibilities:

 

1: Suppose that due to some mutation at some point of time, the eggs had developed the trait of prolonging hatch time in the presence of the particular antigen present on the worm.

They reproduced and eventually the gene spread into the population.

Then, when the worm did appear, then some larvae were better equipped to deal with the situation.

 

2: The worm attacked the species, there is death on a mass scale. By chance, some develop a defence by mutation/any other mechanism.

These survive better.

And the defence mechanism happens to be the one that you see.

 

I think that this is clear. If not, please say so nicely.

 

 

2) specific morphological changes happens due to predators:

 

In 1997 McCollum and Leimberger examined the morphological changes that

arose in the gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) in response to the presence of a predatory dragonfly (Aesha umbrosa). The larvae that were reared in the presence of the predator differed in shape and in color than those that were reared in predator free environments. The treatments exposed tadpoles to tail damage and to chemical cues of the dragonfly feeding on conspecifics. The tadpoles responded plastically by altering their color and tail shape. The tail was extended, presumably increasing swimming speed and hence

survivorship. The color change was seen in the tail. The appearance of color on the tail is thought to attract predatory attacks on the tail rather than on the body.

This can be explained perfectly by both the two mechanisms I described above. It just takes 5 minutes and a minimum IQ of sixty to extend it to this example.

 

 

3) specific behavior changes as a result of predators

 

Larval anurans have demonstrated phenotypic plasticity in response to variation in food availability (Anholt 1998). It has been argued that food availability and predation risk are intertwined. This can be demonstrated when food resources in an environment are high, search time by prey is reduced and predation success may suffer. During times of limited

food availability search time may be lengthened, thus increasing prey vulnerability to predation (Anholt and Werner 1998). In the presence of predators, search time is reduced as activity is restricted to avoid predation. This leads to a reduction of food intake or starvation in environments with low food availability

This is interesting. But how does it fit?

 

 

4) Diet induces developmental changes in physical characteristics.

 

Depending on their diet, individuals (tadpoles) of both species develop into either a small-headed omnivore morph, which feeds mostly on detritus, or a large-headed carnivore morph, which specializes on shrimp.

Genetically programmed by Natural selection so that it can have a higher efficiency of food procuration, and hence better 'fitness'.

 

Thus if plasticity can instantly effect the hatch time of eggs, the size, shape, color, and physical/behavior characteristics of an animal, then about the only place I see a role for RM + NS is in the mind of an evolutionist.

Sorry...? Can you explain it in more explicit words?

 

Boerseun, I see you have a long way to fall...and alot to learn. Lucky for you I'm here to teach you. You need to do some research on phenotypic plasticity.

Lastly, saying this is gonna get anybody really offensive. I doubt if he's gonna reply politely.

[Tormod]

Boerseun, I see you have a long way to fall...and alot to learn. Lucky for you I'm here to teach you. You need to do some research on phenotypic plasticity.

 

Did I mention arrogant and childish?

[Michaelangelica]

I don't think anyone can deny that the Theory of Natural Selection fits the facts better than any other theory.

 

I too have many problems with the theory (see the thread Dawin re-visited), but mainly because I think our knowledge of biology has advanced somewhat since Darwin and Natural Selection does not go all the way to explaining what happens (and how it happens) to life on this planet.

[ronthepon]

What I also want you to do, since you don't believe me, is point me to a controlled experiment where they test animals in different environments to see what happens to their phenotype. Like this:

 

Maybe dogs: Take a group of dogs to the arctic...and take a group of the same types of dogs to the Outback in Austrailia. Then do a controlled experiment and disallow the dogs to interbreed with others in area, and see what happens....not only to the original dogs -- but also to their offspring. Do they get a thicker coat? Do they lose their hair? Does their coat change colors? What happens to their bodies? Do they get shorter, fatter, taller, skinnier?

Some dogs die, few survive. Then, let the surviving dogs live on. They may die, because they were lucky the first time.

If the dog population reaches 10% of the initial amount, bring more dogs in. Just keep doing so until the dog population stabilises.

 

This is a better thing to do. The end may take ten... fifty... maybe eight hundred years to come, but when it does, you will notice that the dog species in the arctic and in the outback are not exactly the same. Hell, how can they be?

 

There are similar thing with us freaking humans. I have visited Ladakh (Himalaya, India) and stayed there for two years. Anybody from the plains cannot live there for more than three years at a stretch without developing severe problems (like muscularisation of arteries). In a period of ten years of stay there without visits to the plains, death is not a far away thing.

 

The locals there, on the other hand are genetically equipped to live all their life there. I've seen them wearing half shirts in six degrees centigrade, mocking my sweaters.

 

But when they go to the hot and humid plains, they just can't take it. They fall hopelessly sick, and cannot venture out of AC rooms, and in some cases they have been terminally ill.

This does not happen to all of them. Those among them, who are able to adjust better to the hot plains are 'fitter', and if there was not medicals, then they would have a better survival chance in the plains.

 

You know what I think? I think evolutionist scientist are CHICKEN of what the results might be -- and how fast they might happen. This is why there are NO tests like this to be found...because it would disprove their notion of gradualism and accidental evolution. Prove me wrong.

:)! Got an alternative theory huh? Man, I can't berlieve you said this.

 

A more practical idea would be to use ants or something.

[ronthepon]

Lastly, supersport, I have to mention the fact that your alternative theory is actually just a sub-point of Lamarck's old (and refuted) theory.

 

Please define what you mean by 'inner intelligence' that deciphers external conditions.

[Michaelangelica]

gradualism and accidental evolution.

I tend to agree.

Traits appear much quicker than the Classic Natural Selection seems to say.They talk about it being very gradual. By that, I read eons.

However new traits in animals (Galapagos finches) can appear in as little as fifty years in humans maybe 4,000 to 10,000 years.

BUT this is not creating an entirely NEW species however. Just a change in beak size or the ability to oxygenate blood at high altitudes.

(sickle cell anemia resistance and Aids resistance (post plague) may have taken only 1,000 years.)

 

Accidens do and can happen with "Jumping Genes" and the fact that bacteria can swap genetic material at will.

The human geonome contains both bacterial and insect DNA

 

(You do have the problem with NS that some animals don't evolve at all (crocodiles, and 4M YO bacteria, algae,"Stromatolites" at Shark Bay, WA for example). Why a two speed evolution?)

 

Lamarck's old (and refuted) theory.

Lamarck is being taken down and dusted off by the new developmental biologists. There may be just something in inherited traits.

[ughaibu]

Presumably you've heard the expression "if it aint broke, dont fix it".

[ronthepon]

Well... Auigust Weismann (I think that was the dude who did it) had shown that germ cells and somatic cells are separated widely at an early stage.

 

I'm hazy about it... I't be better with some googling, but that meant that Lamarck's theory was highly improbable. But who am I to refute it? I'm just saying what I know. I could be mistaken.

 

BTW, I liked your post, Michaelangelica, I'll have to think hard.

[Michaelangelica]

Well... Auigust Weismann (I think that was the dude who did it) had shown that germ cells and somatic cells are separated widely at an early stage.

 

I'm hazy about it... I't be better with some googling, but that meant that Lamarck's theory was highly improbable. But who am I to refute it? I'm just saying what I know. I could be mistaken.

 

BTW, I liked your post, Michaelangelica, I'll have to think hard.

I am no expert either (see the Darwin re-visited thread). I love biology but never really studied it as a seperate disipline (although I did all the psycho-biology courses I was allowed to.)

I don't think the developmentalists say that a behaviour or trait is genetically programmed immediately into a germ cell.

But many say 20% of our personality and 50% of traits like height come from genes. That leaves 50-80% to come from somewhere else.

When you start to read them(Developmental biologists) you do appreciate the incredible complexity of gene expression. Trillions of factors impact on it not least the in-utro environment. They would say there is no such thing as identical twins or identical clones.

[Tormod]

But many say 20% of our personality and 50% of traits like height come from genes.

 

A source would be good at this point. :)

[InfiniteNow]

Why do I see this thread being an example of natural selection... Basically, new member, new environment, fails miserably at understanding the guidelines and success strategy of that environment, and the underlying scientific tone of supporting claims, and dies or is killed by the stronger members of that environment.

 

I wonder how Darwin would have written about evolution in the context of Hypography. That'd be a righteous read! :) Or rather, in memorial to Steve Erwin... "Here on the forum, yull see this dying breed of posta. supersport ova theya is just askin ta be eaten. Crikey!!"

[supersport]

How are the examples in post 14 considered to conflict with the theory of evolution?

 

 

Evolutionary theory has always claimed that we are a result of our genes....that organisms are nothing but vehicals for genes. They have argued throughout the decades that understanding genes and their activities was enough to explain the properties of organisms....Science has given the impression to society that it's the DNA of an organism that creates form...it's a generator of structure. But it is being realized that this is a false. Genes do play a role, but they are not what's in control of phenotypic expression.

 

Ultimately I believe genes are just a tool that's under the control of the body. They do not live in majestic isolation from the rest of the body....instead they live in a cellular context -- the whole system evolves as a reproducing unit...thus DNA is not an independent replicator. But evolutionists, because of this belief in isolation, believe that organisms cannot bring about a "deliberate" change into its DNA, instead, changes must arise in a random manner -- later to be "selected". ...But the reality is God created each animal so that a changing environment can trigger phenotypic changes. Some of these changes involve mutations, some don't (simple plasticity). But in the case of mutations, this happens first by the environment acting on messanger molecules (hormones).....hormones then can regulate genes in targeted cells..and these cells can turn On or Off these sets of genes. Each individual organism is the result not only of its inheritance, but also of its habitat...and transformations start at the moment of conception. The development stage is where most transformations occur. It's where "evolution" happens....and it happens individually -- throughout the population -- at the same time.

 

Next, darwinists believe that proteins are unable to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify DNA. They believe that the flow of information goes from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip. For example, animals might be able to produce more hair in response to colder weather, or more pigmentation in response to lots of sunshine, but these characteristics are not transmitted to offspring. Of course this dogma, if it is overturned, would indicate that acquired characteristics via Lamarckism can enter the hereditary circuit -- of which it does. And this of course reinforces the concept that the environment -- or the parent's environment -- can effect the phenotype of the offspring -- which is heresy for evolutionists because this would indicated direction and purpose.

 

 

But again, Darwinists believe that it's the accumulation of random mutations which is what produces differences of fitness between organisms. This involves long periods of time and natural selection. But my point is that if beneficial traits are not tied to point mutations then natural selection can have nothing to work off of -- it can never build an organism up genetically. Likewise, if every animal in a population has this ability to evolve individually, there again is no real need for selection of "more fit" organisms -- because all would be equally fit upon their emergence in the world. Survival then becomes a lottery based more on luck than anything else.

 

And of course, without random mutations, and without selection, neo-darwinism falls flat

[supersport]

http://www.biotech-info.net/moms_diet.html

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/dn7185-rogue-weeds-defy-rules-of-genetics.html

 

proof that a lamarckian mechanism is possible.

[InfiniteNow]

But the reality is God created each animal so that a changing environment can trigger phenotypic changes.

I knew it would happen sooner or later... This is the biology forum my friend, not appropriate for comments like the above.

 

 

This involves long periods of time and natural selection. But my point is that if beneficial traits are not tied to point mutations then natural selection can have nothing to work off of -- it can never build an organism up genetically.

You will find multiple arguments confirming the above is untrue on Hypography by doing a few simple searches.

 

 

You use terms like darwinists belief's, and dogma, and your crusade will end quite soon if you do not realize how out of place your discussion is. We will try to guide and coach you where we can, but you are the one typing posts and hitting submit, so are ultimately responsible for your own survival here at Hypography.

 

 

Cheers. :smart:

[supersport]

I submit that every creature on earth "evolves" like these butterflies do. "Evolution" happens instantly in the womb or egg....it does not take millions of years. It happens within the lifetime of the animal. Despite being genetically the same as their mother, these butterfly offspring emerge into the world with different phenotypes based on external conditions -- including predators:

 

http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0313021.htm

 

For instance, Monteiro said, the darker wing patterns that show up in butterflies that emerge in the spring serve to warm up the butterfly faster, whereas butterflies that emerge in the summer have lighter colors.

 

"Also, many butterflies that emerge in the wet season in the tropics have large, conspicuous marks on their wings that deflect the attacks of predators while the butterflies are actively finding mates and laying eggs, while the dry-season cohorts are very cryptic, trying to blend in with their environment and not attract any attention from predators until the rains arrive again," she said.

 

The authors note that what's not known about wing patterns in butterflies are the genetic mechanisms that result in the great variety of patterns that exist and an understanding of how those mechanisms have evolved through time.

 

I have bolded the part that you will very often see in scientific papers -- it's an intellectual cover-up for the fact that the theory of evolution has no answer for this type of phenomenon. Nature defies this theory.

[infamous]

Arrogant? Childish? How is that?

 

How about you show me proof since it's your theory that's considered FACT.

Actually supersport, evolution is not the personal and private theory of anyone here at Hypography. However, it does happen to be the contemporary scientific position on the subject. And I'd suggest you read our FAQ and rules page, dwelling on a never ending personal agenda will do nothing but get you much grief from most of our membership. And BTW, your'e in no position to demand proof from us about anything, if you have a case for your position, you are the one that needs to provide proof.

 

Prove me wrong.

This is not the scientific method, I suggest you concentrate on proving your own points and not demanding from us a proof for a negative....................Infy

[Zythryn]

Now...what I want you to do is point me to a controlled experiment that shows how natural selection can actually work.

 

This is one of the reasons that you appear to be so unreasonable. You choose to ignore posts that provide the exact information you say hasn't been shown.

 

Take a look back on page one with Mercedes very patient and well written example of how natural selection works (the cockroach example).

 

If creatures could evolve during their own life, why did so few do so? Then, why did the offspring of such few numbers of survivors have such a higher rate of the gene that gave resistance to the poison?