10 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
The fact that moths go through many generations in a relatively short amount of time means they can quickly adapt through natural selection without mutations. Since genes for both lighter and darker genes already exist in the population, why would mutation be necessary? A barrier for mutations would be the amount of time needed for such a mutation to occu ...[text shortened]... mutations. I deny what you say mutations are able to do and how quickly they are able to do it.
The fact that moths go through many generations in a relatively short amount of time means they can quickly adapt through natural selection without mutations
you mean without NEW mutations. All genes are mutations, just most of them being extremely old ones. Without mutations, there would be no genetic variation for natural selection to act on.
Since genes for both lighter and darker genes already exist in the population, why would mutation be necessary?
those genes for color ARE the necessary ( 'necessary' for natural selection to select) mutations. We don't know exactly how long those particular mutations have been around but, from the evidence of evolution, we know that there must have been a time (presumably a very long time ago) when they didn’t exist in the population and then they occurred.
A barrier for mutations would be the amount of time needed for such a mutation to occur.
that is not a 'barrier'. The fossil record shows life on earth has been around for billions of years. If billions of years is not enough time for some mutations to occur then what is? We have a vast amount of evidence that mutations occur but how 'long' they take to occur is totally irrelevant to whether natural selection selects for any advantageous ones. What does how 'long' it takes for a mutation to occur got to do with what natural selection does with it after it has occurred?
If you believe adaptive mutations can happen as quickly as the natural selection of genes already present,
I don't. And it would be irrelevant if I did. The “genes already present” are ALSO mutations.
I do not deny the existence of mutations.
at last.
I deny what you say mutations are able to do and how quickly they are able to do it.
I never said any thing about “how quickly they are able to do it”(what is the “it”? What is it that I claim they are “able to do”?) and what exactly did I say about what they “ are able to do” that you deny?
10 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
Show me an example of how natural selection can anticipate something that hasn't yet happened, mutations or no mutations.
Show me how mutations can move faster than natural selection is able to respond to cause and effect.
In other words, explain to me the magical properties of mutation.
Show me an example of how natural selection can anticipate something that hasn't yet happened,
-the same stupid straw man yet again.
Show me how mutations can move faster than natural selection is able to respond to cause and effect.
that sentence doesn't make any logically coherent sense. Which "cause and effect"?
In other words, explain to me the magical properties of mutation.
-yet another straw man; there are no magical properties of mutations.
10 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen a population of moths were first observed to change color, the original assumption was the change was due to mutations. BTW, I just happen to be familiar with this particular story. This was at a time when nothing was known about genes in a population, so they couldn't have known about selection of genes.
So is it your claim that every gene in every life form has been in that life form since the beginning of life? How do you account for such great diversity of genes? Surely over time as genes die out there would be gradual reduction in gene diversity until each species is nearly uniform.
This also contradicts the well known fact that mutations occur and t ...[text shortened]... animals? Are you saying that every gene in every dog was already present in the ancestor wolves?
The genes determining color were already present, whether or not the genes showed any appearance of being in that population... by that I mean lighter colored moths were already carrying the darker gene. But at the time this wasn't known.
I believe this story originated in England during the industrial revolution, when black smoke was everywhere and turning buildings and trees darker. Mutations were the only theoretical answer at that time, so the natural conclusion was that the moths coloring had mutated. When genes were discovered and it was understood how they could be selected by environmental pressures, most scientists changed their minds about what caused the difference in coloring. This was all settled a long time ago...
And yet this story is still making the rounds, and claiming mutations were the reason.
10 Jun 13
When a population of moths were first observed to change color, the original assumption was the change was due to mutations.
-due to mutations being selected by natural selection, yes. That assumption is still assumed to be correct. All genes are mutations. The fact that a gene may be many millions of years old does not change the fact that it is a mutation.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyThe "assumption is still assumed to be correct."? How does assuming anything make it a fact?When a population of moths were first observed to change color, the original assumption was the change was due to mutations.
-due to mutations being selected by natural selection, yes. That assumption is still assumed to be correct. All genes are mutations. The fact that a gene may be many millions of years old does not change the fact that it is a mutation.
Who is still assuming the moths mutated?
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSo your definition of 'information' is that it must have some intent? If this is not what you are saying then can you clarify please.
Answer the question? I wasn't the one who introduced the example of tossing letters on the floor. If a word happens to show up then no, it's not information. It's a pattern that just happens to match a pattern we recognise as being a word. Does that answer your question, or am I still "avoiding" your question?
If it is what you are saying then your claim that information does not arise from random actions is a trivial observation that is true by the definition of information.
Perhaps you can answer a question for me now. Does the probability of an outcome increase with each throw of the letters, or does it stay the same? You haven't addressed that point yet. I won't assume you have been avoiding it, but now that I've asked...
I don't think you asked it before.
The probability that it will occur in at least one throw increases with each throw.
The probability that it will occur on a given throw, remains the same for each throw.
Thats basic probability theory, so I am not quite sure why you ask. Am I missing something?
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeDo you have any references for this? The Wikipedia page seems to suggest that it is unknown when the mutation occurred, and I suspect it would be impossible to know.
The genes determining color were already present, whether or not the genes showed any appearance of being in that population... by that I mean lighter colored moths were already carrying the darker gene. But at the time this wasn't known.
Why do you rule out a mutation?
I must also point out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#Genetics
In peppered moths, the allele for dark-bodied moths is dominant, while the allele for light-bodied moths is recessive, meaning that the typica moths have a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele), and never in a heterozygous one. This helps explain how dramatically quickly the population changed when being selected for dark colouration.
Which clearly contradicts your claim that white coloured moths can carry the darker gene.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadColor is part of adaptation not evilution.
Do you have any references for this? The Wikipedia page seems to suggest that it is unknown when the mutation occurred, and I suspect it would be impossible to know.
Why do you rule out a mutation?
I must also point out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#Genetics
[quote]In peppered moths, the allele for dark-bodied moths is d ...[text shortened]... uote]
Which clearly contradicts your claim that white coloured moths can carry the darker gene.
The instructor
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSimply stating something is 'adaptation' not 'evilution' is nothing more than fighting with the dictionary which is a stupid thing to do, definitions are never right or wrong, they just are.
Color is part of adaptation not evilution.
The instructor
Do you accept that:
1. Colour can arise through mutation.
2. Colour genes can be selected for via natural selection.
If not, how do you define 'adaptation'?
10 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
The "assumption is still assumed to be correct."? How does assuming anything make it a fact?
Who is still assuming the moths mutated?
The "assumption is still assumed to be correct."? How does assuming anything make it a fact?
it doesn't. The evidence makes it a fact.
Who is still assuming the moths mutated?
mutated when? The gene that was selected is, like all genes, a mutation that must have occurred at some time even if occurred a very long time ago.
yes or no: do you understand that evolution theory implies that ALL genes are mutations?
Do you deny that all genes are mutations and, if so, can you give evidence of just one example of a single gene that could not have come to existence as a mutation? What rational explanation of how a gene could have come into existence if not as a mutation? -if no rational explanation, that means ALL genes are mutations.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
10 Jun 13
Some mice and some birds have 3 different sexes. There are usually two dominating (most common) and one less common (if I put it simple, there are 2 kinds of 'female' sexes). This is because, it happened to be that way, some time in history the 'second female' sex appered (gradually of cource). This just 'worked' meaning, until this day the 3rd sex is still '''''alive'''''. Couriosity, in the molluscs, they generally only have one sex. What happenes then is that they connect, one takes the role as 'female', another as 'male' and the penis goes in to a hole. Then the one reciving stores the sperm in a hole in the body. Then everything goes by. Often they mate several times, meaning a 'female' mollusc can have different holes in her body containing sperm from several individuals. After a while she decides that having babies is the right way to go, perhaps because she lives in a safe, stable, chemically optimal environment. With lots of food for the babies. And the 'wheel of nature' so to say start the process again. Yes, I like this kind of things, thats why I remember it. // Olof 😏
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingWhen you say 'three sexes' I think about sci fi books with extra sexes and in that context, the extra sexes are mandatory for reproduction. Is that what you mean? If so, I have never heard of such a thing in Earthy life form. No sex, male and female, but three? Can you expand on that?
Some mice and some birds have 3 different sexes. There are usually two dominating (most common) and one less common (if I put it simple, there are 2 kinds of 'female' sexes). This is because, it happened to be that way, some time in history the 'second female' sex appered (gradually of cource). This just 'worked' meaning, until this day the 3rd sex is s ...[text shortened]... in. Yes, I like this kind of things, thats why I remember it. // Olof 😏
10 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay, so I used the wrong word. I am a relic from a time when people talked about dominant and recessive "genes". So what? It doesn't change the fact that there were dominant and recessive "things" in the moths that could determine color. I can sort out a pile of dark and light colored marbles into piles that are 'darker' or 'lighter' when seen as a whole. It doesn't mean darker or lighter marbles mutated or new marbles came into existence. I sometimes use Wikipedia as a source, but I don't regard it as the ultimate authority on all matters. You guys are keeping me busy enough as it is, I'm not going to search for "information" every time you challenge me on some point... there isn't enough time in my day for doing that. Actually, there is enough time in the day for doing that, but I do have other things to do.
Do you have any references for this? The Wikipedia page seems to suggest that it is unknown when the mutation occurred, and I suspect it would be impossible to know.
Why do you rule out a mutation?
I must also point out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#Genetics
[quote]In peppered moths, the allele for dark-bodied moths is d ...[text shortened]... uote]
Which clearly contradicts your claim that white coloured moths can carry the darker gene.
I want to get back to the point you were making about letters thrown on the floor. Even if I saw a word, or phrase, or even whole sentences and paragraphs in those letters, it would only be because I recognise a pattern I'm already familiar with. But those letters cannot covey information because there is no intent or meaning meant to be conveyed. I think we can both agree with that. But I don't see how it relates to an arrangement of "parts" in DNA, because the "information" there actually does something. Letters strewn on the floor don't instruct other letters to form other arrangements of letters. A line of code is also meant to do something, or cause something to happen. If it didn't it would worthless for getting your computer to do anything other than to sputter and cough and hopefully try spitting it out.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computing
Okay, so I used the wrong word. I am a relic from a time when people talked about dominant and recessive "genes". So what? It doesn't change the fact that there were dominant and recessive "things" in the moths that could determine color. I can sort out a pile of dark and light colored marbles into piles that are 'darker' or 'lighter' when seen as a whole ...[text shortened]... ything other than to sputter and cough and hopefully try spitting it out.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeI was just pointing out that your claim that the light coloured moths contained the information required for the dark colour is wrong.
Okay, so I used the wrong word. I am a relic from a time when people talked about dominant and recessive "genes". So what?
I sometimes use Wikipedia as a source, but I don't regard it as the ultimate authority on all matters.
I don't take it as the ultimate authority either, but in this case, unless you state that you have reason to believe it is wrong, I see no reason why we don't just accept that it is likely true that the black colour is dominant.
I want to get back to the point you were making about letters thrown on the floor. Even if I saw a word, or phrase, or even whole sentences and paragraphs in those letters, it would only be because I recognise a pattern I'm already familiar with. But those letters cannot covey information because there is no intent or meaning meant to be conveyed. I think we can both agree with that.
As I currently interpret your words, I might agree, but your later sentences suggest a subtle change in meaning. So if I read the words "he went to the words" in my letters on the floor, although I would accept that no conscious entity deliberately tried to 'convey' that meaning to me, I would say that nevertheless the meaning was conveyed. And I did manage to read and interpret the words did I not?
But I don't see how it relates to an arrangement of "parts" in DNA, because the "information" there actually does something.
But are they 'conveying'? Do they have inherent intent or meaning? How can we know?
A line of code is also meant to do something, or cause something to happen. If it didn't it would worthless for getting your computer to do anything other than to sputter and cough and hopefully try spitting it out.
So if I type random programing code into my computer, and it manages to perform 4 instructions in a row, was the code I entered 'information'? Did it 'convey' anything?