Questioning The Evolutionary Process

Welcome to the fray Aures, Fortunately for you, improbable is not impossible. Most "improbability" calculations made by creationists and IDologists consist of faulty assumptions and bad math, so don't put much weight on them. Each individual has several unique mutations. This is due to the horrendous size of the genome. Low mutation rate x large genome = plenty of mutations. Which is totally unnecessary for a mutation to spread in a population. All you need is replication of the organism with a mutation for it to spread. My impression is that you think a single mutation causes some vast change to the organism: it doesn't. Most mutations are neutral, and further most are found on recessive genes (presumably any lethal or deleterious ones on dominant genes are removed by pre-birth fatality). Mutations on recessive genes would not be expressed until you had two parents with the same mutated gene, and that can take a while in a population of relatively random breeding organisms. Not sure what you are getting at here, could you explain this further?Enjoy.ps - as you are new, some tips:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : .

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

New folks always welcome. Note that if you are replying to a specific person there is a button at the lower right corner of each post:

And using this reply button links your post the it and sends an e-mail to the person you are replying to (if they set up to receive e-mails). The only "harmony" that is essential for an organism is its "harmony" with its ecosystem -- ie its fitness. There is no need to be beneficial or any teleological purpose to mutations (hope I'm not reading something into your post that isn't there).There is also no need for any "harmony" between mutations within an organism, and there is no mechanism to cause any interactions - harmonious or otherwise - between mutations in one organism with those in another -- it is a random and independent process.Mutations occur in individual organisms in random patterns. Whether those mutations get passed on to the next generation is a matter of neutral and natural selection.If the mutation is neutral then there is no selection for or against the mutation, and it is subject to neutral drift during reproduction of descendants.If the mutation is in a recessive gene and does not express any change to the phenotype then it will also be subject to neutral drift during reproduction of descendants, until such time as it appears as a homozygous descendant of two parents that inherited the mutation.IF it then produces a change in the phenotype, then it will be subject to natural selection. Not all mutations affect the phenotype, or do so only in minor ways: variations in beak size in Galapagos Finches say. I'm afraid biology in general, and evolution in specific, does not work that way at all. It appears you think a single mutation will always cause a "macro" evolutionary, if not saltational, change in a phenotype to produce what is (often derisively) called a "hopeful monster" ... hopeful of having an equally hyper evolved mate.Most mutations do not produce such a degree of change that they would not be recognized as mates -- different length bones (think different heights in humans), possibly different coloration (think blue eyes versus brown eyes and their impact on reproduction). When mutations occur in regulatory genes their impact can be greater: mutations in these genes can cause duplication of body parts, such as polydactyly, or "siamese" twins.In normal biological behavior patterns, if the change is too great for the individual to find breeding partners then it will be eliminated by natural selection: failure to produce offspring. This occurs all the time, as there are always individuals that fail to breed in every generation. The difference between improbable and impossible is the difference between 1/probability and 1/0. Most probabilities are improperly calculated by creationists and IDologists. You would be better not to think in terms of probabilities, but in terms of possibilities.Large scale changes in a phenotype are not necessary for evolution of new species, many species are very similar to parent\sibling species, and there are many existing "cryptic" species which cannot be told apart without genetics. Think of the difference between horses and zebras.Once sibling populations have become reproductively isolated they are free to accumulate slow change within each population (due to mutations) that are not major enough to interfere with breeding success but which add up over time to greater diversity between the descendants of the sibling populations.Rapid production of new markedly different species is not necessary to explain the evidence of life on Earth. What looks "rapid" in paleontology occurs on a geological time scale, and thus it still covers many many generations.That's enough for now eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

.... now please open the envelope and let us know what is the normal number of unique mutations that a person has ...thanks

That's (~)100 new ones that you did not inherit from parent genomes. The probability of any one being duplicated is low.You have a lot of others that you do share.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I get you now. The paper was # of new (since parents) mutations per individual, not the whole population. Given the (current) size of the human population, it is not unreasonable that some are duplicated, true. But, you are still dealing with many more mutation possibilities than the (# gene locations) x (# population). Not all mutations in the same location need to be the same kind of mutation.There is also the issue of the similarity of the genomes being mutated to begin with: is it the same mutation if the next sequence is already different (inherited)? In a very real sense each persons genome is unique, so any change to it is different from a similar change to a different person's genome: it can have an entirely different result due to interaction between genes.But also given the (current) size of the human population, the chance of two people that do just happen to have the same mutation in identical sections of DNA coming into contact and mating and producing offspring are truly remote (the original point regardless of uniqueness of the mutations).That's the way I understand it anyway.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray dkv,Another way to think of it is that evolution is an opportunistic response mechanism.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I disagree. The mutations currently in existence in any population are opportunities for evolution to build on. Organisms can take opportunity to move into new ecologies and expand.When ecology changes around an organism it has to take the opportunity provided by the mutations currently in existence in the population to change to match or suffer.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.These formating procedures help distinguish what you say from what you are quoting from others. False. Who survives and passes on their genes and who doesn't is a matter of selection. That is when natural selection comes into operation. Of course not, nobody said it did. What increased diversity through a variety of mutations or inhabiting a variety of ecologies does in increase to possibility, the opportunity for survival. Humans and other animals are populations of individuals with a diverse plethora of mutations in their genomes that provide opportunities for greater diversity.Meaning to existence is not what science is looking for -- if you want to look for that try philosophy. Religion is also not looking for finding the meaning of existence, it is too busy telling you. Because we have brains that can ask questions, and because asking them in a scientific process helps develop answers to increase knowledge. Nothing. Evolution occurs in populations through the change-over in individuals from one generation to the next. If that is your belief, that is your concern.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Current theory does not say there is intention to survive, there is only do or not do. Which would be why assigning a direction would be false thinking according to current theory. Survival (or not) is not a criteria, it is the observed physical effect of the interaction between individual and ecology. Meaning of life is what you make of it. This is not bound by evolution, just as evolution is not bound by it: they are independent consequences of life. Ah, I thought we were talking about the theory of biological evolution. The theory that species change over time due to mutation and natural selection and some other mechanisms:

quote:

---

See Message 158

​

(1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.

​

(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.

​

(3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.

​

(4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:

• theories on how change is enabled
  ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
• theories on how changes made within each generation are selected
  ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate)
  ... etc

​

Now it may be interesting to flesh out #4 with the lists of theories from natural selection to genetic drift to punk-eek to runaway sexual selection ... etc.

---

Natural selection operates on the individuals, and the sum of the effects on the individuals is the total effect on the population, the total effects on different populations of a species add up to the effect on the species. There is no additional effect that would be due to the species or to any of the populations.I read your Message 228 and Message 235 where you talk about your theory (and this curious "Replicating Genes theory"). Please start a new thread on it. In the meantime I suggest learning more about the "current theory" as it seems you have some misconceptions there.The fact that sex is pleasurable would be a logical result of evolution not a cause of it (those that find it pleasurable will engage in more of it, producing more offspring thus increased numbers of individual that find it pleasurable due to natural selection for that trait).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It comes from a gene reductionist viewpoint, thinking that natural selection operates on individual genes. It doesn't - it operates on phenotypes that have many mutations, some beneficial and some not, and it is the overall fitness that is selected. This may involve the interaction of two or more mutations where one of them alone is insufficient.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray bertvan I predict that if you study the data that you will find that this has already been invalidated.I further predict that if you deny this evidence that invalidates your concept that this will not make it any more valid, but will just show that you are deluded: How are these adaptations encoded into the genome? What is the mechanism that changes the genome to match the development?How do you reconcile this definition of epigenetic with this concept of later incorporation of the trait in the genome (genetics}: This development of the embryo is based on the genome and the growing environment (chemicals, hormones, nutrition, etc), but not on any inheritance of non-genetic characteristics developed by any parents.You do not have any means to transfer adaptations except through the genes. How would they know if they are generation 1 or generation 1000?Looks like you concept has some serious logical flaws in it .... not least of which is that it has already been invalidated.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Actually they did. Extensively and continually. As I said, the theory of inherited developed features has been invalidated. This went under the moniker of Lamarkism

quote:

---

Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution refers to the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as based on heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories and is often incorrectly cited as the founder of soft inheritance.

​

While enormously popular during the early 19th century as an explanation for the complexity observed in living systems, the relevance of soft inheritance within the scientific community dwindled following the theories of August Weismann and the formation of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

​

Epigenetic inheritance

​

Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also. These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered "Lamarckian" in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially effect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms. Although the reality of epigenetic inheritance is not doubted (as countless experiments have validated it) its significance to the evolutionary process is however. Most neo-Darwinians consider epigenetic inheritance mechanisms to be little more than a specialized form of phenotypic plasticity, with no potential to introduce evolutionary novelty into a species lineage.[5]

---

In other words it has been and is extensively studied. Genetic studies have ruled out transmittal of information to the DNA, studies that involved things like cutting off the tails of mice to see if tailless mice would evolve, showed that there was no effect of cutting off the tails on the genomes of the mice.Even if other non-genetic hereditary effects (methylation etc) are passed on this is not due to the organism directing it's development, as it too is passed to the organism in the germ cell from the parent. This makes it subject to natural selection (on the phenotype) and normal evolutionary processes, but it is not the development of the feature that causes the hereditary effect (methylation etc) but the other way around.In fact these non-genetic hereditary effects (methylation etc) are due to random processes in the same way that mutations are random processes, it can develop in one subpopulation but not in another that is otherwise identical (ecology and genome), while your hypothesis would require it to develop in both. In other words you have no clue how your system operates, when your (unknown) mechanism kicks in, and how this hypothetical "something happens" can be differentiated from evolutionary theory or from the invalidated Lamarkism theory.And we should consider this science?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This is what you claim when you say that acquired traits get incorporated into the genome. A cut off tail is an acquired trait.It was before they knew about genes, remember that Lamarkism was very popular and seemed to be possible at the time. They thought that the form of the parents were mixed in the offspring, so if both were tailless, then the offspring should be. It was by doing experiments like that which showed that it didn't work. I think if you do a little research you will see that it is in the phenotype where selection operates on the individual organisms, but that there is no creative interaction. This will involve reaction to changes in ecology and mutations and natural selection for adaptation to achieve those "limited adaptations to temperature, altitude and novel food sources" and that this is more than sufficient to explain those changes and the development of organs that are useful and the atrophy of organs that are not useful.Those adaptations that are not reflected in the genome will still be hereditary traits involving developmental reaction to environmental chemicals during development of the organism (evo-devo), or they will not be subject to natural selection (for or against). The hereditary changes that are genetic will be made in the genome before the hereditary traits are expressed - that's the way mutation works.The hereditary changes that are due to developmental reaction to environmental chemicals during development of the organism (evo-devo) will not be adopted into the genome (they don't need to be), ...... but sections of DNA that are now no longer used during development will be subject to random mutations such that if the environmental chemicals that caused the developmental change reverted they would no longer function. Depending on the developmental change involved this may amount to the same result (a certain feature arrested during development, or the development of a feature not being stopped at the "normal" stage). As far as I know the only "control" organisms have on the process is to speed up the rate of mutations when under stress. This is documented in bacteria and some experiments suggest it applies to multicellular life too. Again I wonder if you really understand what the word "epigenetics" means, that developmental evolution (evo-devo) is an existing field of scientific study independent of politics ... and yes it does matter that you can call it science, because it is only through testing and study according to the principles of science that we will determine what happens versus what is conjectured to happen. How about evidence, hypothesis, prediction, testing, evaluation, to ascertain the logical validity and let the philosophical implications to beliefs sort themselves out? Science is not the same as religious or philosophical beliefs and many people have no trouble reconciling their faith with science.The trouble starts when some people try to deny or change facts to fit their beliefs. You don't get to choose facts, and if a belief is contradicted by facts it is not faith to continue that belief ... it is delusion: So far you have not suggested anything that cannot be explained by science, nothing new or thought provoking and no need to alter current theories.Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray Elmer That has not been a problem for any of the creationists with similar levels of education, and you may be less encumbered by false ideas of what is involved. Presumably by "the philosopical assumption that has ruled biology" you mean "some whimsical, quasi-divine 'nature' entity that chooses/selects survivors from victims on the basis of some mystical criterion called 'fitness'." But there is no personification of nature into any kind of entity doing anything. To think of evolution being in any way directed towards some goal is totally false.What you really have are these basic possibilities

1. some god or god created life and man to rule earth, so man is not responsible for global warming or anything else. If man's behavior doesn't satisfy this god or gods they can step in and take over.
2. some god or god created life and man to take care of earth, so man can be responsible for global warming or anything else and should take measures to preserve the earth. If man's behavior doesn't satisfy this god or gods they can step in and take over.
3. some god or gods created the whole universe but don't care whether human life continues, so the issue of global warming etcetera is irrelevant to the god or gods, and is solely an issue affecting humans themselves and one that is their problem to solve.
4. there are no gods, so the issue of global warming etcetera is solely an issue affecting humans themselves and one that is their problem to solve.

Personally I think that the concept of your survival being dependent on your environment being habitable for your species is one more likely to end with a response that we ought to do something than any other concept.Can you think of one more likely to produce results? He, not that sex is an important trait ....The issue is that for a genetically tail-less mouse the lack of tail is a trait, and that the question posed was whether this trait could be acquired by cutting off the tails of mice before mating. This is not mere semantics either, but a very real historical concept, one that has been falsified, but which was considered entirely possible before falsification. See Lamarckism. There is nothing mystical -- no quasi-divine 'nature' -- about selection as used in evolution science, it is the selection of individuals to pass on hereditary traits by their relative ability to survive and reproduce. One phenotype may be better at swimming through a flood, another phenotype may be more attractive to mates or have higher fecundity. This is basic evolution science. Calling natural selection by a different name won't change the process involved, nor do I believe this will lead to any increase in understanding by creationists, and it is open to misinterpretation as well. Evolution as a whole is a dynamic response system, and natural selection is part of that process. This also is NOT evolution. There is no determined, mechanical,inevitable, immutable linear progression. Old news. Demonstrated over and over. Natural selection is a fact. It's been documented in Peppered Moths and Galapagos Finches among others. Then you are ignorant (uninformed) of the facts. This can be rectified. Certainly nature is not inhibited in any way by what you know, think and believe ... singularly unimpressed with what anyone knows, think and believe. What is more troubling is your apparent disinterest in finding out whether Natural Selection is a fact before posting your ignorance. It is easy to disabuse yourself of ignorance.Natural selection - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms. Antibiotics have been used to fight bacterial diseases since the discovery of penicillin in 1928 by Alexander Fleming. Natural populations of bacteria contain, among their vast numbers of individual members, considerable variation in their genetic material, primarily as the result of mutations. When exposed to antibiotics, most bacteria die quickly, but some may have mutations that make them slightly less susceptible. If the exposure to antibiotics is short, these individuals will survive the treatment. This selective elimination of maladapted individuals from a population is natural selection.

---

Care to elaborate? It could be your discussion of global warming and needing an alternative concept to evolution to combat it ... Which is precisely why we should use scientific evidence and valid conclusions and not untested philosophy. Part of that science is the actual effect of humans on the climate of the earth (established fact). Another part is the ability of organisms to survive changes in their ecologies (established fact).Basing it on mythology would be rather ridiculous eh? Yet looking for real information is your best way to determine philosophical truths. On the other hand you can come to a site like this and ask questions -- where you are willing to learn from the answers rather than just post questions from a philosophical position already decided. Because that would be wrong.So are you willing to learn?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not a problem. The only suggestion I would make would be to stick to one element at a time and focus on it. Say "natural selection" ... Yes, instead of selection by people interested in breeding certain traits in domesticated animals, this is the selection that occurs naturally with no input from man nor supernatural (otherwise it would not be natural eh?) entity. One thing that occurs naturally is mating of organisms, and rarely is mating purely random, due to distance and opportunity, so mating can involve selection occurring by natural processes. Different individuals within populations may have different levels of sexual activity and fecundity, resulting in different numbers of offspring from different individuals. It is a natural result of the differences between individuals.In some species there is sever sexual competition, and in these cases we can say that sexual selection is occurring -- the natural selection of mates by individuals based on individual preferences. This kind of selection can result in run-away selection for desired features that may even inhibit the survivability of the carriers. The peacock tail, for example, both attracts predators and makes it difficult for the fully endowed males to escape.Other aspects of natural selection involves survival, not of major catastrophic events, like floods and fires, but involving everyday health, nutrition and being able to avoid sever sickness. The differences in health, nutrition and sickness can result in selection -- they are healthy and have the energy to mate and take advantage of the opportunities better than those who are sick.Catastrophes tend to eliminate individuals that were unlucky -- they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, often with all individuals of a species in that area being killed -- this is not natural selection because it is not selection, survival does not depend on hereditary traits but in being lucky. A tree falling on an organism and killing it is not natural selection either, but such chance events can effect the future evolution due to genetic drift of the remaining hereditary traits in the population (natural selection is one process of many in evolution).Natural selection is the process that selects hereditary traits from generation to generation through differential survival and reproduction of individuals within populations. The selection is similar to that of breeding programs, but it occurs naturally. You're wrong because you are going at it from the wrong direction. You first assume that all selection -- even in breeding programs -- is only due to intelligent interaction, when often traits are linked so that you get trait {A} with trait {B} whether you want {A} or not. By this mean YOU personify selection as an intellectual process. Second you activate "nature" to be the source of the intelligent interaction that makes the selection, when the fact is that natural selection is just selection that happens naturally. It is natural that some animals get sick and die while others do not. It is natural that some animals die of thirst during droughts while others do not. It is natural that some animals die of hunger during famines while others do not. All of these individual deaths are selection that occurs naturally. It's simple to demonstrate that the obverse is false. Assume evolution is directed towards a purpose, then each step, each stage, each result of selection must be in the same direction, always building on previous selections step by step towards the goal.Now we look at the evidence and we see events like the Galapagos Finches and the Peppered Moths (and many many others) where we see evolution proceed in one direction (larger beaks, dark wings) but then turn around and proceed in the other direction (smaller beaks, light wings). This falsifies direction.We can also look at organisms like cyanobacteria that are virtually the same as they were 3.5 billion years ago, they have not evolved into something else. This falsifies purpose. That is your prerogative, however that doesn't mean that evolution needs to be involved in any way other than to provide a source of sufficiently intellectually developed creatures able to contemplate your philosophy. It doesn't have to result in humans. The question you will tend towards is whether intelligence is self selecting or provides a benefit such that any creature with a sufficient level of intelligence will reach the desired result. Actually you brought it up in your discussion of global warming. Yet those organisms that survive whatever ecological and climatic change occurs will be fit, selected naturally to continue living and breeding. You can try to ignore this aspect, but that will not change the fact that natural selection will continue to occur, selection that will occur naturally to differential between the "fit" and the "unfit" in the coming generations. So you agree that any "faith-based" approach is counter productive? No, it is a difference, a characteristic, a condition, that distinguishes one type of organism from another. Having a tail would not be a trait if not having a tail was not a trait. In a genetic sense the difference between the tail condition and the tail-less condition is a difference in genes. In some cases it may be a gene is not fully expressed, so the tail does not form, and in others it could be that the gene is blocked by another gene. And either condition may be a recessive, tailed or tail-less. Humans are tail-less, and it is a trait, a characteristic, a condition, that distinguishes them and other apes from primates with tails. Yet it is an historical fact that Lamarkism, whether it was promoted by Lamark or by Darwin, involved the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics, it is an historical fact that experiments with cutting off the tails of mice occurred to test it, and it is also an historical fact that this concept has been invalidated.Lycos

quote:

---

A German developmental biologist, August Weismann, helped propel Lamarck into obscurity when he tried to test Lamarck’s theory that organisms pass on survival-oriented traits acquired through their interaction with the environment. In one of Weismann’s experiments, he cut off the tails of male and female mice and mated them. Weismann argued that if Lamarck’s theory were correct, the parents should pass on their tail-less state to future generations. The first generation of mice was born with tails. Weismann repeated the experiment for 21 more generations, but not one tail-less mouse was born, leading Weismann to conclude that Lamarck’s notion of inheritance was wrong.

---

Now you say that "Weismann was a sophist who set up a strawman of Lamarkian theory," yet the theory was that "organisms gained aquired traits through use and disuse" and cutting off tails would certainly result in disuse and prevent all use of tails. Selection that occurs naturally. The result of normal (natural) differential success in living and mating of different individual organisms within a population. Those elements may contribute to the normal (natural) differential success in living and mating of different individual organisms within a population, but they won't be all the factors involved (this is why selection occurs on the phenotype not just the genotype). Natural selection creates change in species from generation to generation, far from nothing, but there is no creative force behind it -- purpose and direction being already refuted.Enough for tonight. I'll continue later (it may be sunday).For now the main point is natural selection is selection that occurs naturally.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.