Intelligence of Evolution

[TonyMcC]

pioneer - I suppose what I am saying is that if you roll a die and it lands on one of its faces the only thing you can be sure of is that you will get a number between 1 and 6. What you are saying is if you know the die's starting point together with all other details such as number of shakes, force of roll, air resistance, smoothness of the landing surface etc. etc. you would be able to forcast the number obtained. I can't argue with that. However, when you think about the number of variables concerned in evolution the mind boggles at the thought of prediction. For example a new species might get its start from a cosmic ray that might alter the DNA of a female egg. I suppose you would have to predict the effect that would be the inevitable consequence for each part(s) of the DNA that might be changed. In order to make that prediction you would need to know about the ever changing environment the new being would be born into. How it would be cared for and that iit would definitely reproduce. You would have to predict right at the start that the number of offspring would be definitely going to have enough influence on the environment to generate a new species. Although what you say is undeniable I think the odds against are so huge that inspection of the DNA of a fertilised egg will only take you a little way along the path to prediction.

[D H]

The whole idea of random is an assumption or a result of an incomplete theory.

Nonsense. You are arguing for a theory that perfectly describes some phenomenon and perfect information about that phenomenon. There is no such thing as a perfect theory or perfect information. Shoot, there is no such thing as perfect information in a system as simple as modeling the behavior of our solar system. The solar system is chaotic. Biological systems, which are a whole lot more complex than our solar system, are blatantly chaotic. It is so dang chaotic that applying the concepts of dynamical systems theory to biological systems has been a bit challenging. (That dynamical systems theory is rather math-intensive and that many students decide to study biology as opposed chemistry or physics because they suck at math makes applying dynamical systems theory to biological systems doubly challenging.) Nonetheless, people have been working on doing exactly this for the last decade or so.

[cypress]

As to the gradualism vs PE thing. Darwin never said that things have to evolve at the same rate. We now know that great morphological changes can occur though very small modifications of Hox gene expressions with gene regulatory networks. So variable environments can lead to more evolutionary change than stable ones...no surprise there.

 

See these two papers by Emlen on Dung beetle horns:-

 

EMLEN, D. J. (2000). "Integrating Development with Evolution:A Case Study with Beetle Horns." BioScience 50(5): 403-418.

 

Emlen, D. J., L. Corley Lavine, et al. (2007). "On the origin and evolutionary diversification of beetle horns." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(Suppl 1): 8661-8668.

 

I see from these papers and a host of others that modifications to Hox developmental controls leads to deformation of an established form and degradation of corresponding function but I don't see any case where new functional configuration is derived. You are implying that changes to developmental controls drives functional morphological configurations but you offer only deformities as your evidence. From the evidence, we should conclude that modifying hox gene expressions leads to lost and degraded form and function as opposed to new form and function.

 

Hox and related gene clusters are highly conserved in evolution. They go back at least 500+million years to before the Cambrian Burgess Shale fauna. And yet they are flexible enough for great change and innovation to occur, via gene duplication, function gain, function loss, and subfunctionalization. For a detailed view, read:-

 

Carroll, S. B. (2005). "FROM DNA TO DIVERSITY: Molecular Genetics and The Evolution Of Animal Design". Oxford, Blackwell.

 

for a less technical account read:-

 

Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful:The New Science Of Evo-Devo and the Making Of The Animal Kingdom. London, Phoenix.

 

Once again I don't see from these articles where great innovation is a result of hox and related developmental control changes. Molecular biology investigations instead seem to indicate that a coordinated package of differences are required to enable new form and function including new protein tertiary structures, new protein binding sites, new gene expression controls, new developmental controls, new regulation controls, new transport and assembly subsystems and others as well. A mechanism that explains derivation of novel form and function must explain coordinated and coherent derivation of of all of these subsystems. Coordinated derivation of these subsystems collectively implies a massive infusion of functional information to the organism. Any process that derives novel form and function must explain the source of this coordinated and coherent information infusion. Your model describes how randomly changing one of the subsystems can and does damage the outcome.

 

Evolutionary developmental biology is now in a state of crisis. Despite the initial promise of large functional change from few key mutations acting early in the developmental process, it has not worked out so well. William Jeffery, an evolutionary developmental biologist at University of Maryland concedes that evo-devo is "at a dead-end". A major problem is that conserved genes cannot explain how, in the end organisms with the same genes are so different.

 

Pennisi, Elizabeth, "Evo-Devo Enthusiasts Get Down to details", Science 298, Nov. 1 2002: 953

[Darwinsbulldog]

I see from these papers and a host of others that modifications to Hox developmental controls leads to deformation of an established form and degradation of corresponding function but I don't see any case where new functional configuration is derived. You are implying that changes to developmental controls drives functional morphological configurations but you offer only deformities as your evidence. From the evidence, we should conclude that modifying hox gene expressions leads to lost and degraded form and function as opposed to new form and function.

 

 

 

Once again I don't see from these articles where great innovation is a result of hox and related developmental control changes. Molecular biology investigations instead seem to indicate that a coordinated package of differences are required to enable new form and function including new protein tertiary structures, new protein binding sites, new gene expression controls, new developmental controls, new regulation controls, new transport and assembly subsystems and others as well. A mechanism that explains derivation of novel form and function must explain coordinated and coherent derivation of of all of these subsystems. Coordinated derivation of these subsystems collectively implies a massive infusion of functional information to the organism. Any process that derives novel form and function must explain the source of this coordinated and coherent information infusion. Your model describes how randomly changing one of the subsystems can and does damage the outcome.

 

Evolutionary developmental biology is now in a state of crisis. Despite the initial promise of large functional change from few key mutations acting early in the developmental process, it has not worked out so well. William Jeffery, an evolutionary developmental biologist at University of Maryland concedes that evo-devo is "at a dead-end". A major problem is that conserved genes cannot explain how, in the end organisms with the same genes are so different.

 

Pennisi, Elizabeth, "Evo-Devo Enthusiasts Get Down to details", Science 298, Nov. 1 2002: 953

Unfortunatly I don't have access to that Pennisi paper.

[Mr Skeptic]

I see from these papers and a host of others that modifications to Hox developmental controls leads to deformation of an established form and degradation of corresponding function but I don't see any case where new functional configuration is derived. You are implying that changes to developmental controls drives functional morphological configurations but you offer only deformities as your evidence. From the evidence, we should conclude that modifying hox gene expressions leads to lost and degraded form and function as opposed to new form and function.

 

So then you admit that changing it makes new function. Degradation is of course new, unless it already existed somewhere perhaps? And in any case, I'm sure you're incredibly surprised that a small step away from a local maximum will usually result in reduced function, and think there is some deep meaning to this other than the obvious.

 

Once again I don't see from these articles where great innovation is a result of hox and related developmental control changes. Molecular biology investigations instead seem to indicate that a coordinated package of differences are required to enable new form and function including new protein tertiary structures, new protein binding sites, new gene expression controls, new developmental controls, new regulation controls, new transport and assembly subsystems and others as well. A mechanism that explains derivation of novel form and function must explain coordinated and coherent derivation of of all of these subsystems. Coordinated derivation of these subsystems collectively implies a massive infusion of functional information to the organism. Any process that derives novel form and function must explain the source of this coordinated and coherent information infusion. Your model describes how randomly changing one of the subsystems can and does damage the outcome.

 

Again, this is false. A small change can result in novel function. For example,

a small change of one amino acid in sGC is the difference between it being a sensor for oxygen or nitrogen. As you noted elsewhere, this can be seen as degraded function -- because the NO binds much more strongly but the O2 is far more plentiful, decreasing the binding affinity to oxygen turns it into an NO sensor. In this case this "degraded function" turns out to be the same as "new function", since now it functions as a sensor for NO. Very similar such proteins are used in different creatures, either for binding NO or O2.

http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v1/n1/full/nchembio704.html

 

Riboswitches, though not proteins, can perform a similar function. In the link are two such riboswitches, one for binding guanine and the other adenine. One single change is the key to their different specificity

http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=education_discussion/molecule_of_the_month/pdb130_1.html

 

Evolutionary developmental biology is now in a state of crisis. Despite the initial promise of large functional change from few key mutations acting early in the developmental process, it has not worked out so well. William Jeffery, an evolutionary developmental biologist at University of Maryland concedes that evo-devo is "at a dead-end". A major problem is that conserved genes cannot explain how, in the end organisms with the same genes are so different.

 

Pennisi, Elizabeth, "Evo-Devo Enthusiasts Get Down to details", Science 298, Nov. 1 2002: 953

 

Whose promise?

[pioneer]

Another consideration is low energy randomization to describe changes in the DNA.

 

As an analogy, if we start with a deck of new cards that are sequenced at the factory, and only cut the deck once (low energy randomization shuffle) the odds are different, than if we fully shuffle the deck (complete randomization).

 

The DNA does not work using sufficient energy for a complete randomization at the level of genes. If it did, there would little that is genetically common between species, since the odds for genetic change would be evenly spread throughout the DNA. But what we observe are a large number of common genes that stay the same, which has lead to the conclusion that everything appears to have evolved from a single source. The DNA makes use of lower energy randomization, which changes the odds into something more favorable for evolution.

 

If you look at the new deck of cards, we have fours suits, each in order. We cut the deck in half and flip the cards into each other. If we deal this low energy randomization deck to two people, each will get straight flushes since all we have done is alternate sequences. The hands would have low probability if we fully shuffled the deck, but with the low energy randomization, it occurs almost on cue.

 

The water plays a role in the low energy randomization shuffle. For example, if we have lipids in water they form the lipid bi-layer. If there was no water and the lipids could interact in a vacuum, there would be more randomization with respect to the final shape. Once we use water, we loss this same level of random. If we added enough energy to overcome the potential within the water, we can begin to approach the more random situation of the vacuum. But life doesn't use that much energy. This also limits the shuffle of the DNA, so the odds can change with respect to full energy randomization, stacking the deck for evolution.

 

As another analogy, say we have a six sided dice. If we throw it hard each side has 1/6 odds. Say we used a very weak or low energy throw that can only flip the dice 90 degrees. The bottom number can not appear since that would be 180 degrees. All sides should be 1/6 , but now the bottom is more like 1/1,000, while the 90 degree sides of the dice are 1/4. The top can't appear since it needs 360 degrees so it is 1/1,000,000. With respect to life, some genes carry forward without much in the way of change, since these are at 360 degrees.

Edited October 27, 2010 by pioneer

[cypress]

Unfortunatly I don't have access to that Pennisi paper.

 

Perhaps you can address the issues I raised in my post. The paper largely serves to support the statements I attributed to others.

 

So then you admit that changing it makes new function. Degradation is of course new, unless it already existed somewhere perhaps? And in any case, I'm sure you're incredibly surprised that a small step away from a local maximum will usually result in reduced function, and think there is some deep meaning to this other than the obvious.

 

Not hardly.

 

Again, this is false. A small change can result in novel function. For example,

a small change of one amino acid in sGC is the difference between it being a sensor for oxygen or nitrogen. As you noted elsewhere, this can be seen as degraded function -- because the NO binds much more strongly but the O2 is far more plentiful, decreasing the binding affinity to oxygen turns it into an NO sensor. In this case this "degraded function" turns out to be the same as "new function", since now it functions as a sensor for NO. Very similar such proteins are used in different creatures, either for binding NO or O2.

http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v1/n1/full/nchembio704.html

 

There are several examples of a single mutation altering enzyme function and in previous conversations I have acknowledged this. Your example of an enzyme that does not participate in protein - protein binding is not an example of the kind I was describing. The challenge is to demonstrate that evolutionary processes generate all types of functional changes not just the simplest of changes.

 

Additionally, the authors did not let evolutionary processes generate the alteration, instead the researchers used a reverse engineering process to specifically design the alteration. The paper therefore establishes that it is possible to design one from the other, but it does not establish that evolutionary processes did the same.

 

Riboswitches, though not proteins, can perform a similar function. In the link are two such riboswitches, one for binding guanine and the other adenine. One single change is the key to their different specificity

http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=education_discussion/molecule_of_the_month/pdb130_1.html

 

If one looks one can find straw man arguments that represent exceptions to nearly any general rule. As you note, these are not proteins and these are not protein-protein binding sites. The majority of but not all molecular proteins are components of molecular machines made up of many proteins bound together.

[lilschuh]

Has anyone ever been able to describe how evolution seems to know of the surroundings of an animal? For example how is it animals whose natural fur color matches that of their surroundings? Or how did the eye come about? How would it know to make an organ that picks up light waves and how to even translate the information?

 

All of natural selection and evolution are random. The mutations in genotypes and then to phenotypes are completely random. The reason that natural fur colors match the surroundings is because, at one point, the mutation caused the fur to be a little bit more like the surroundings, giving that animal a better chance to survive and pass on that mutation.

 

The eye is the same way, small random mutations that built upon each other.

[Ophiolite]

All of natural selection and evolution are random. ....... the mutation caused the fur to be a little bit more like the surroundings, giving that animal a better chance to survive and pass on that mutation.

Natural selection is not random. Quite the opposite. The whole point is that favourable selections are selected for. It is not chance which mutations prosper. It is dependent upon the environment and the fit of the mutation for the environment.

[cypress]

All of natural selection and evolution are random. The mutations in genotypes and then to phenotypes are completely random. The reason that natural fur colors match the surroundings is because, at one point, the mutation caused the fur to be a little bit more like the surroundings, giving that animal a better chance to survive and pass on that mutation.

 

The eye is the same way, small random mutations that built upon each other.

 

Adaptations such as fur color and beak length are established based on observation.

 

Not sure why you would Extend this to wholesale devlopment of an entire optical system like the eye. It is unconfirmed speculation and the scientific method does not accept speculation. I say this because experiments confirm that at the molecular level in cells, novel function of complex multipart systems like the optical system requires a mutitude new binding sites, protein shapes, expression controls, regulation controls, cell process controls, developmental controls and these functions are codependent. Thus far, experimental work has not been observed any instance of these precursor components being derived. In fact there are exactly zero examples of observed evolutionary pathways greater than 4 contiguous (uninterupted) steps involving mutations that lead to these precursor molecules.

[Skaffen]

It is survival of the most adaptable, not fittest. This immediately confers recognition of the environment as the driving force and is why all life is a composite of smaller scale organisms. The volume of non-human dna which is responsible for our digestion is well catalogued. In this context punctuated equilibrium is a 'bolt on' attribute that fits well into the lower order (microbial) and increases adaptability on the macro scale.

 

Consider the Caucasian ability to digest animal milk. As humans migrated into different environments they come into contact with different microbes, due to uncertainty in environmental changes in higher latitudes this ability 'had' to be found or there would be no Caucasians....but humans would go on.

[zapatos]

Adaptations such as fur color and beak length are established based on observation.

 

Not sure why you would Extend this to wholesale devlopment of an entire optical system like the eye. It is unconfirmed speculation and the scientific method does not accept speculation. I say this because experiments confirm that at the molecular level in cells, novel function of complex multipart systems like the optical system requires a mutitude new binding sites, protein shapes, expression controls, regulation controls, cell process controls, developmental controls and these functions are codependent. Thus far, experimental work has not been observed any instance of these precursor components being derived. In fact there are exactly zero examples of observed evolutionary pathways greater than 4 contiguous (uninterupted) steps involving mutations that lead to these precursor molecules.

I did a quick read of some of your posts and am just looking for an overview of your position on evolutionary theory. Is it your postion that evoltionary theory is correct in some ways but insufficient to explain some things such as the amount of diversity we now see? If so, where would you guess the explanation lies? For example, is evolutionary theory simply not understood well enough yet, or is it something else? I apologize if I did not interpret your posts well. It seems obvious you have issues with evolutionary theory but I am not sure if you are suggesting alternatives or if you are simply pointing out weaknesses.

[lilschuh]

It is survival of the most adaptable, not fittest. This immediately confers recognition of the environment as the driving force and is why all life is a composite of smaller scale organisms. The volume of non-human dna which is responsible for our digestion is well catalogued. In this context punctuated equilibrium is a 'bolt on' attribute that fits well into the lower order (microbial) and increases adaptability on the macro scale.

 

Consider the Caucasian ability to digest animal milk. As humans migrated into different environments they come into contact with different microbes, due to uncertainty in environmental changes in higher latitudes this ability 'had' to be found or there would be no Caucasians....but humans would go on.

 

Isn't fitness defined as the capability of a certain genotype to reproduce? So, isn't it the fittest that survives? Adaptability is the ability to change to fit certain circumstances, which I think may lead to increased fitness. But, I thought it was survival of the fittest. Many things contribute to whether an organism will be relatively fit, and I believe adaptability is one of those. I don't feel like adaptability is the end all be all for survival.

 

I do agree with your point on 'all life is a composite of smaller scale organisms' though.

[CharonY]

Indeed. Fitness is a measure of reproductive success. It has to be noted that not the individual is meant with "survive" but in the most precise way it would refer to the alleles or maybe traits that confers a given fitness. In other words, alleles that confer a fitness survive within a gene pool over time and start to spread and may eventually lead to fixation.

[skyhook]

"Adaptations such as fur color and beak length are established based on observation."

 

The fox and some other animals have a winter coat. If I go to live at the arctic, my hair won't turn white though. I think those eskimos have dark colour hair. I kept some doves some years back. I think some doves may have slightly longer beaks, that they are born with. There are also variations in the size of the birds' heads and size of the feet of different birds, comparing same sex but from different nest. The beak is an organ that seem to be growing, like fingernails and sometimes become deformed when not used properly, like they should be pecking at the ground to even out the growth. I think the beak length is partly due to genes and partly due to how the birds use it.

 

I would think evolution is random. As they say, if earth rewind the clock back and restart again, it may not come to the same conclusions again. and also if you think about a bird. I was like a bird trapper also. and there is this beautiful bird species. The most beautiful birds get to breed as usual, but if I trap the best birds, then the duller bird gets to breed. So the random factor is if I can catch the best bird or the dull bird, and whether it is a fine day or bad weather day, which may affect my decision to get out of the house.

[Skaffen]

Isn't fitness defined as the capability of a certain genotype to reproduce? So, isn't it the fittest that survives? Adaptability is the ability to change to fit certain circumstances, which I think may lead to increased fitness. But, I thought it was survival of the fittest. Many things contribute to whether an organism will be relatively fit, and I believe adaptability is one of those. I don't feel like adaptability is the end all be all for survival.

 

 

 

I do agree with your point on 'all life is a composite of smaller scale organisms' though.

 

 

All life is defined by it's ability to reproduce, from the bottom up. DNA to Pimp Daddy

 

'Fitness' infers a purpose to be fit for - Evolution has no purpose/design. Adaptability incurs a relationship to a changing environment.

 

If an asteroid was going to destroy 95% of life we would live underground, we adapt to survive - I don't incur any meaningful sense of fitness in this except fit to survive which is clearly adaptability.

 

Many animals adapt by lying dormant through extreme drought until the rain comes - fit to sleep? (which I can relate too )

 

If it was physical fitness the dinosaurs would still rule but conversely it is the big ones that have the hardest time.

 

All life is defined by it's ability to reproduce, from the bottom up. DNA to Pimp Daddy

 

'Fitness' infers a purpose to be fit for - Evolution has no purpose/design. Adaptability incurs a relationship to a changing environment.

 

If an asteroid was going to destroy 95% of life we would live underground, we adapt to survive - I don't incur any meaningful sense of fitness in this except fit to survive which is clearly adaptability.

 

Many animals adapt by lying dormant through extreme drought until the rain comes - fit to sleep? (which I can relate too )

 

If it was physical fitness the dinosaurs would still rule but conversely it is the big ones that have the hardest time.

 

 

 

from wiki (Adaptation) - Main Darwinian Evolution article is terrible IMO

 

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.^[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,^[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.^[4]

 

The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival.^[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.

 

 

 

 

Adaptation is the heart and soul of evolution. Niles Eldredge

Edited November 10, 2010 by Skaffen

[cypress]

I did a quick read of some of your posts and am just looking for an overview of your position on evolutionary theory. Is it your postion that evoltionary theory is correct in some ways but insufficient to explain some things such as the amount of diversity we now see? If so, where would you guess the explanation lies?

 

Evolutionary processes adequately explain adaptation of existing form and function. This is established.

 

For example, is evolutionary theory simply not understood well enough yet, or is it something else?

 

It seems to be incomplete on how new form and function arose. I believe there must be other more capable processes involve in generation of new functional systems.

 

I apologize if I did not interpret your posts well. It seems obvious you have issues with evolutionary theory but I am not sure if you are suggesting alternatives or if you are simply pointing out weaknesses.

 

Few people are interested in discussing alternatives for long. It seems to be a short discussion because it is hard to debate with yourself. I find it more interesting and fruitful to correct misconceptions and accurately describe popular theories primarily because there is no shortage of people overselling popular ideas.

[Maximus Semprus Veridius]

Evolution is a process, so it can't be clever or stupid (I somehow doubt this is what you meant though). Also evolution happens constantly (as long as their are things able to compete or survive) so a crocodile that can strike faster than a wilderbeast can escape is more likely to survive and pass on its genes to its offspring, its offspring will gain these genes (probably) and will inherit the same traits as its parent. Other members of the crocodile's species may have quite slow strike times comparitively and die out due to lack of food because it can't catch the wilderbeast. This is evolution by the means of natural selection.

 

Also:

 

Out of interest I have been reading up a bit on this subject. Wherever I have looked so far I get the impression that the likes of Darwin and Wallace are not believed to have been incorrect in their ideas. The general opinion seems to be that their ideas were not complete and modifications were needed to explain more completely the paths of evolution. The same IMO could be said of the likes of Newton and even Einstein concerning their theories. what puzzles me is why the likes of Newton and Einstein are revered whereas poor old Darwin is ridiculed and despised by so many people.] Out of interest I have been reading up a bit on this subject. Wherever I have looked so far I get the impression that the likes of Darwin and Wallace are not believed to have been incorrect in their ideas. The general opinion seems to be that their ideas were not complete and modifications were needed to explain more completely the paths of evolution. The same IMO could be said of the likes of Newton and even Einstein concerning their theories. what puzzles me is why the likes of Newton and Einstein are revered whereas poor old Darwin is ridiculed and despised by so many people.

 

Yes that is exactly right. People like Richard Dawkins has have contributed massively to the understanding of genetic traits being passed on in the form of evolution by natural selection. And Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc² is actually more accurate as E²=m²c⁴+p²c² or something like that. If you haven't read up on Richard Dawkins he is a great biologist and has written many books on evolutionary biology and argues passionately for atheism, his most famous and prolific work is The Selfish Genes (which is a fantastic read).

Edited November 11, 2010 by Maximus Semprus Veridius

[lilschuh]

All life is defined by it's ability to reproduce, from the bottom up. DNA to Pimp Daddy

 

'Fitness' infers a purpose to be fit for - Evolution has no purpose/design. Adaptability incurs a relationship to a changing environment.

 

If an asteroid was going to destroy 95% of life we would live underground, we adapt to survive - I don't incur any meaningful sense of fitness in this except fit to survive which is clearly adaptability.

 

Many animals adapt by lying dormant through extreme drought until the rain comes - fit to sleep? (which I can relate too )

 

If it was physical fitness the dinosaurs would still rule but conversely it is the big ones that have the hardest time.

 

 

 

 

 

from wiki (Adaptation) - Main Darwinian Evolution article is terrible IMO

 

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.^[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,^[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.^[4]

 

The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival.^[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.

 

So it sounds to me like you are looking at adaptability as a means for survival, therefore giving the individuals a better chance to reproduce. Is that correct?

 

What about say, speed of an antelope. The antelope doesn't decide to run faster or slower based on the lion chasing it. It runs as fast as it can because that is how it is programmed.

 

"Fit to survive which is clearly adaptability." What if there is not a need for adaptation in a particular instance. Say, the antelope never gets caught and never has to be faster. It doesn't adapt if it doesn't need to, so it is still going to survive without adapting, because it is the most fit to survive. Its possible for the animal to never change and still be the fittest animal in the world. This 'fittest to survive' animal does not need to be adaptable in order to survive.

[Ophiolite]

Its possible for the animal to never change and still be the fittest animal in the world. This 'fittest to survive' animal does not need to be adaptable in order to survive.

It had to be adaptable to become the 'fittest animal', not in the world, but in its ecological niche.

[lilschuh]

It had to be adaptable to become the 'fittest animal', not in the world, but in its ecological niche.

 

I will agree with that.

 

Okay, so I'm curious as to what you think about the "survival of the most adaptable, no fittest" convo I've been having with Skaffen.

[Ophiolite]

Okay, so I'm curious as to what you think about the "survival of the most adaptable, no fittest" convo I've been having with Skaffen.

Unfortunately I have found both of your contributions ambiguous and vague. Frankly you both seem to be saying the same thing rather badly. What do you see as the difference between your positions?

[Incendia]

I think this may be of help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&v=YcvWnsiQycc