Are we still evolving?

[Arete]

Again you're adding no value to this discussion you're simply scrutinizing other's comments.

 

Pot, meet kettle. Plus, it's a discussion forum. I am discussing. It tends to be what we do here.

 

Ofcourse if you feel the need to protect your ego, by all means go right ahead.

 

You just quoted someone else, and attributed it to me.

 

You also, as CharonY points out, got the biological definition of fitness wrong. Survival is not biological fitness. Fitness involves the contribution of genetic material to the next generation.

 

You also might want to drop the snarky little personal attacks, as if you want an example of something that doesn't add anything to a discussion they are it.

 

 

Yes we are well aware that drift can cause fluctuations in allele frequency as well as desertion of certain alleles. Yes, thank you for the Bio 101, and again as with most of your comments, no value in this conversation what so ever.

 

You missed the point. You claim that "ALL biological systems are pushing to greater fitness". Various biological process - drift, inbreeding, hitchhiking, recombination, etc are all capable of moving a population lower on a fitness landscape, hence to a state of less fitness. Making your previous comment about fitness demonstrably incorrect. Might want to take Bio101 again...

 

Though this does not describe general directionality of organic evolution in at it's broadness, as if this happened to be the case biology would have never sprouted. Genetic drift is generally a poor argument to the fact that better fitness is the general driving force of biological systems.

 

While selection is undoubtedly a major force in evolution, so is drift. As previously cited, drift can overwhelm selection. To claim otherwise is to contradict decades of empirical population genetic data. You can't generalize about the role of selection in evolution, as it is not a continuous force. As previously cited (again), a reduction in selection pressure is often associated with adaptive radiation. Hence drift and selection operate synergistically to create phenotypic diversity. To claim one force over the other is simplistic to the point of being incorrect.

 

This being said evolution will not cease, again this goes back to my previous comment.. These laws that dictate biological systems are in turn dictated by physical laws, and so it is the failure of the biologist such as yourself to think otherwise.

 

Could you point out where I, or anyone else claimed any of this, please? It seems like an example of the pointless soapboxing you so vehemently despise.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Arete

[davidivad]

my question is this.

if we have saturated all ecosystems, then do we lose the benefit such things brought us in the past.

we are clearly still evolving as our teeth, skull, and other things have changed. however, this may not be relational to what the topic refers to as it is a large timescale involved.

another question i have is whether or not such evolution will be sucessful in the future.

we may very well topple from evolution's finest creation.

aren't we over specialized already?

any more could wipe us clean off the earth if the environment evolves new niches.

what if we run out of oil?

our advantage through selection has undoubtedly made us smarter unfortunately it is easily put to rest without resources.

if we extend to a new niche like space, then it will force evolution yet again just as a new niche does.

sorry guys, this is the extent of my knowledge of evolution.

arete?

am i understanding this correctly?

would you prefer the question or the argument?

[BusaDave9]

And there lies the root of the vast misunderstanding and technical ignorance you have been displaying throughout the thread: you think evolution is about the evolution of new species.

So we don't get new species from evolution? Then how do they come about? Please clarify.

I think you meant to say there can be evolution without producing a whole new species. But you wanted to word that in the most condescending way you could possibly come up with.

Can't we tone this discussion down and do without the personal attacks?

Edited December 16, 2014 by BusaDave9

[davidivad]

go figure, we are all here to argue and cant get along...lol

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Andreskiani - the personal snipes and jibes stop now!

 

And if everyone else can try to ignore them - I know how tempting it is to wade in.

 

Can we all get back to the interesting and illuminating topic - that I am enjoying reading - and avoid un-necessary confrontation (I am all for the necessary kind).

 

[Ophiolite]

So we don't get new species from evolution? Then how do they come about? Please clarify.

I think you meant to say there can be evolution without producing a whole new species. But you wanted to word that in the most condescending way you could possibly come up with.

Can't we tone this discussion down and do without the personal attacks?

Where is the personal attack? You have demonstrated on this this thread that you seriously misunderstand evolution as portrayed by your extensive ignorance of its technical aspects. I am saying nothing about your personality, but am specifically addressing your demonstrable lack of knowledge. If you do not wish to have comments made about that lack of knowledge you have two options:

1. Learn more.

2. Don't display the lack of knowledge on a public forum.

[davidivad]

i probably could have just waited and told someone to find out for me.

i will use other resources to avoid the conflict.

[CharonY]

I don't think anyone defined evolution for the purpose of this thread which might put you guys on the same track...

After all, if all we can do is argue, lets at least argue about the same thing.

Perhaps such technical ignorance is a reflection of a master's pride.

We learn from those we see.

I have lemonade because i know how to make it.

You have a lemon no doubt...

Does this make me more evolved or just superior?

It has been mentioned here and in other threads a couple of times. Evolution is basically the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Generally, we are talking about long time frames, though, as slight shifts from one generation to the next alone could be only temporary fluctuations. Some, equate evolution with hierarchical changes (populations becoming fitter or otherwise superior) or speciation (which is a special case, happening under distinct circumstances), which are common misconceptions and have to be pointed out to put people back on the right track.

 

As a general, untargeted comment I would also like to point out that lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of. I have an unlimited reservoir of things and topics that I know nothing about (as does everyone). Trying to appear that you know things rather than trying to learn is a waste of everybody's time.

 

Think about the opportunity here on this forum. If, for example you are interested in evolution (or other topics for which we have experts), you could ask questions to professionals like Arete [edit] and chadn737 and learn from them. For free. Contrast that with trying to convince those that actually work in these areas that whatever you say is actually correct, just to prop your ego. Which seems more productive for yourself?

Edited December 16, 2014 by CharonY

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I asked for comments and personal sniping to be stopped - this applies to everyone. Get back to the topic and stop characterising either other posters or their state of knowledge.

 

I will also reinforce Charon's comment - the recent discussions on evolution have been enriched by the participation of three academics (to include chadn737) who work and research in this very area; for those of us who are interested amateurs we should be exploiting this resource rather than thoughtlessly challenging basic academic teaching.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - comments will be hidden - and please get back to debating the topic which is asking whether we are still evolving (yes of course we are).

 

[Phi for All]

So we don't get new species from evolution? Then how do they come about? Please clarify.

I think you meant to say there can be evolution without producing a whole new species. But you wanted to word that in the most condescending way you could possibly come up with.

 

Ophiolite just said that evolution is not about speciation, he didn't say it doesn't happen. I'm not sure why you read any condescension into it.

 

Many people misunderstand evolution and assume it has some kind of ultimate goal. We've had threads here about why we haven't grown wings yet if evolution is true.

[AndresKiani]

Higher gene pool = higher survivability

 

Better suited traits = higher survivability

 

More offspring = higher survivability

 

More resources = higher survivability

 

The push for greater fitness by organisms means higher survivability and so fitness in this sense can have broad definition. CharonY I never once said natural selection was the model by which humans will evolve. No I'm definitely not comfortable with that explanation. Our society doesn't run on Darwinian philosophies, natural selection for humans has little meaning in this sense.

 

However the push for greater fitness is still a viable model for humans to continue evolving. Though we must also respect the fact that our species is in evolutionary equilibrium and that most of evolution is dictated by periods of equilibrium.

 

The main problem I have with you Arete is that you continuously want to define fitness, so much so that I don't even know what your actual point is. Otherwise I do respect your knowledge and experience as well as yours CharonY.

[Delta1212]

There's no push for greater fitness. It's an inevitable consequence of heritability and differential reproductive success.

 

Things that reproduce more will be better represented in the gene pool. That's trivially true and since humanity still experiences a great deal of differential reproductive success (which generally doesn't have much to do with what we value in terms of success or "fitness"), we don't have much say in the fact that natural selection happens to us or what is getting selected.

 

Whether our social philosophies are Darwinian has little to do with whether Darwinian processes apply to us, and they apply to anything that replicates with variation.

[AndresKiani]

There's no push for greater fitness. It's an inevitable consequence of heritability and differential reproductive success.

 

Things that reproduce more will be better represented in the gene pool. That's trivially true and since humanity still experiences a great deal of differential reproductive success (which generally doesn't have much to do with what we value in terms of success or "fitness"), we don't have much say in the fact that natural selection happens to us or what is getting selected.

 

Whether our social philosophies are Darwinian has little to do with whether Darwinian processes apply to us, and they apply to anything that replicates with variation.

 

 

I've agreed with this in my earlier comments.

 

I know notice that in these forums we also have to be "politically correct" at all times otherwise it leads to misunderstandings and bickering back and forth with what we actually meant. For example.. I meant to say "Biological Systems.. and not "Organisms" push.

 

 

Unfortunately this whole discussion has been ravaged with misunderstandings.

Edited December 16, 2014 by AndresKiani

[Arete]

The push for greater fitness by organisms means higher survivability and so fitness in this sense can have broad definition.

 

In the context of biology, this is incorrect.

 

Fitness has a very simple definition; the quotient of heritable material and individual passes to the next generation. It really is that simple, and it boils down to a very simple mathematical model. Unfortunately, as you are displaying, it's also one of the most misunderstood, partially because of the misleading nature of the phrase "survival of the fittest".

 

Here is some information to clarify.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753274/

http://www.radford.edu/~rsheehy/GraphingDemo/fitness1.html

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/01/22/fitness/

 

However the push for greater fitness is still a viable model for humans to continue evolving. Though we must also respect the fact that our species is in evolutionary equilibrium and that most of evolution is dictated by periods of equilibrium.

 

The first sentence is delving into "not even wrong" territory, in that a "push for greater fitness" i.e. selection is one of many forces in an evolutionary model, and cannot comprise a model in of itself.

 

The second sentence is incorrect.

1) Humans are not a population in HWE, but rather a metapopulaton of a number of sub-populations. As a whole the human species is therefore not in equilibrium, and sub-populations vary in their levels of heterozygosity (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929712003230 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7319/abs/nature09534.html)

 

2. No population is ever in perfect HWE, so selection and stochastic variation continually push populations of organisms away from equilibrium. If you're talking about punctuated equilibrium, this is a distinct theory from HWE. The cyclic stasis and adaptive radiation which characterize are driven by variation in evolutionary forces. There's no expectation of HWE, but an see sawing of stabilizing and diversifying selection through time.

 

The main problem I have with you Arete is that you continuously want to define fitness, so much so that I don't even know what your actual point is.

 

As stated, evolutionary fitness has a bleedingly simple definition. I'd also like to note I didn't define it once, until now in this thread - you actually quoted CharonY not me.

 

The hardest part about understand the definition is stripping away all the assumptive attachments people characterize it with. You, yourself have incorrectly described it above as survivabilty. You can live a long time but if you fail to reproduce, your fitness in a biological sense is zero.

 

 

Otherwise I do respect your knowledge and experience as well as yours CharonY.

 

0_o That's hard to believe:

 

Rather, it seems to me, and I'm sure others involved in this discussion, that your critiques are mainly for your own personal egocentric satisfaction.

you have successfully re-iterated most of what we have said with no additive value,

Again you're adding no value to this discussion

therefore your huffing and puffing is not needed in our discussion. Ofcourse if you feel the need to protect your ego, by all means go right ahead.

and again as with most of your comments, no value in this conversation what so ever.

[Strange]

Higher gene pool = higher survivability

 

What is a "higher gene pool"?

 

 

The push for greater fitness by organisms means higher survivability

 

There is no such push. (Who would be pushing?)

 

 

CharonY I never once said natural selection was the model by which humans will evolve.

 

It is still the only model we have (with a few minor tweaks from modern theory). What is your alternative?

 

 

Our society doesn't run on Darwinian philosophies, natural selection for humans has little meaning in this sense.

 

Despite a few people misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Darwinism" to support things like eugenics or unpleasant business practices, you are right: society obviously doesn't run on Darwinian principles. Why would you expect it to? And what does that have to do with natural selection?

[Delta1212]

 

 

I've agreed with this in my earlier comments.

 

I know notice that in these forums we also have to be "politically correct" at all times otherwise it leads to misunderstandings and bickering back and forth with what we actually meant. For example.. I meant to say "Biological Systems.. and not "Organisms" push.

 

 

Unfortunately this whole discussion has been ravaged with misunderstandings.

I'm not sure where the political correctness comes in, but you do have to be exact in your use of terminology. Playing fast and loose with terms is how you get misunderstandings.

[AndresKiani]

Well.. next time I'll be prepared.

I think we are done here. There is nothing else to be said other then, next time I wont make the same mistake of just going off the top of my head using my phone as a keyboard interface.

[AndresKiani]

I've been humbled.

[davidivad]

no, this was your victory over the self.

you won.

[Commander]

DNA of each living Being is DIFFERENT !

 

DNA of the Child is different from Parents though Spliced from them !!

 

Replication of DNA depends on the Life Process [All Experiences and Environments] and therefore can effect changes.

 

Therefore Evolution over Generations is a Definite ongoing Process which may Slow Down or Accelerate depending on the Causative Factors !!!

 

Structural Changes [features , looks and sizes] , Average Life-Span, Skills including Brain Power etc can all keep changing !!!!

Edited December 17, 2014 by Commander

[AndresKiani]

no, this was your victory over the self.

you won.

 

Lol yeah.

[Commander]

Perhaps we need to evolve and have a better passage between the nostrils and the lungs so as to avoid all the sinusitis problems !

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps we need to evolve and have a better passage between the nostrils and the lungs so as to avoid all the sinusitis problems !

You can guarantee that is happening.

[Commander]

You can guarantee that is happening.

 

Sure, I hope so !

 

The doc asked me to undergo an operation to clear it up but I refused because it did appear that the Doc wanted the Money from it and also the improvement may not be permanent and therefore decided to BEAR THE SINUSITIS AS-IT-IS !!