Can random mutations increase fitness?

[MacM]

I expected you to emphasize on my age that is why I said, you will judge me by my age. But you really don't know what I know. I have been taking College Biology not High School Biology. I have been talking 2 hours everyday when I go there with my Professor. After my arguments with him, he himself told me that this theory is mostly CHANCE. And has a very unlikelyness to actually be true.

But I don't expect you to believe me. I said High School, because I am in High School but that doesn't mean I can't take College Biology. There is a program in our schools that you can take college classes and get high school credits at the same time, you might of heard of it. So basically I have studied Evolution at the level of 20 to 24 year old people.

You are to be commended and I am not questioning your veracity regarding your academic achievements. It would not be a favorable thing for your own future to exaggerate.

However, I think my comments still stand. You are still far from a Ph'd and beware of Professors. They do not all fully appreciate science. That is some indeed have the book learning but no experience and actual hands on understanding. Teaching from books does not yield the same confidence in their content as doing the research and testing that created the information in the books.

Teachers must also pass class by an achievement score. If 70% is passing, that actually means they got 3 out of 10 answers wrong!

And finally, as you have already pointed out even among scientists, in virtually every field you have groups that favor one view over another. With regard to evolution the scientific disbelievers are in an extreme minority. Such disagreemnts are generally over some specific detail and not the issue of evolution itself.

You seem to have a preconcieved notion that evolution simple can't be right and are collecting every bit of negative press or fact, be it media, creationists or just alternate scientific opinions and collectively using that to attack the concept with a broad brush.

For each QUALIFIED negative comment you find you must also consider the same issue and the number of positive arguements. Ones persons opinion does not overturn a theory. That belief or finding must become generally accepted before that happens.

That doesn't mean they are wrong and the majority is right but only that you should not make up your mind to soon. Absorb all you can and then decide.

From your claims I would say you are academically better qualified to talk biology than I, since my background is nuclear BUT due to my age and experience I have to tell you that I think the issue is more understanding the scientific methodology and confidence in the qualified masses supporting evolution than it is any actual biology issue you have raised.

 

[786]

For your information. There are many scientist who do not believe in the Theory of Evolution

 

[786]

Ph'd doesn't have to do with anything. It is common sense and facts.

 

[James R]

786:

My age is 15, I am in high school. But I have already taken biology, thus meaning I already went over the process of Evolution.

Now is the time to go out and change the world, 786, while you still know everything.

My field is Science. I want to be a Doctor.

Medical doctor, or PhD? Medical doctors need to know about evolution, since it is the foundation of biology. You could do a PhD in a non-biological field, of course. You'd never make any sense of biology with your current mindset.

But I gained interest in this and have talked to many
science teachers. They all agree that this theory is more of a hypothesis than a theory. And also that this is on very shaky ground.

What are the tertiary qualifications of your teachers, and which institutions did they get them from? Are any of them qualified in biology?

 

[786]

did you read my second post. I took College Biology.

 

[kula]

I dont believe in random mutations being responsible for evolution (unless my perception of statistics is fundamentally flawed !)

What we consider to be life has some very special qualities, and to be able to keep those, in the light of random mutations seems a bit too complex. If one of the qualities of life is consciousness, then life may be able to adapt its own DNA, over generations, towards what it 'imagines' it needs (based on analysis of its conscious observations). It gives a 'purpose' to consciousness and removes the 'chaos' from an otherwise balanced system.

Here are a couple of thoughts. (ive used this on another post, so apologies if youve seen it before)

http://www.mtvdance.com/artists/magic lamp/geometry of conciousness.htm

kula

 

[MacM]

For your information. There are many scientist who do not believe in the Theory of Evolution

I'll tell you what I'll do. For each qualified biologist you name that denies evolution (I don't mean supports some alternate twist to evolution) I'll name 10 that support it.

When one stops posting names he loses. Sound fair or are you aware that the odds are substantially in my favor?

 

[James R]

Did you read the very first post in this thread, kula?

 

[kula]

Did you read the very first post in this thread, kula?

Hi, yes i did

I am not saying that random mutation isnt possible, i just think that nature found a better way.

And if it didnt do, i think it has now via human consciousness and bio-feedback.

kula

 

[spuriousmonkey]

did you read my second post. I took College Biology.

I am finishing my PhD in biology. Published on evolution.

 

[John Connellan]

There are two types of evolution it talks about. One is only through Natural Selection, which creates diversity for example many kinds of horses. Not completely different species. I believe in that, sort of.

Natural selection actually does the opposite. It reduces diversity. It can only act by reducing diversity.

But Species into Completely Different Species, for example bear and whale, is on shaky grounds, which is not reliable.

Sorry if u have explained this before in the thread, but can u tell me why u think species can't change through evolution?

 

[786]

Natural selection actually does the opposite. It reduces diversity. It can only act by reducing diversity.

I think you're wrong here. Natural Selection reduces the population. Because the fittest survive and the rest mostly likely die or fell prey. The diversity I am talking about is different type of the same animals. An example of how this might happen is adaptation. If part of the poplutation miragrates. Then it will have to adapt to the enviroment. This will only change the gene in what they already have. For example they already have beaks. One side of the population might develop longer beaks. But they will remain birds, only they will be a litte different.

Sorry if u have explained this before in the thread, but can u tell me why u think species can't change through evolution?

This part of the theory is on shaky grounds. If there was no chance then it had no ground, but since they say there is a chance they have ground but very shaky.

 

[786]

I am finishing my PhD in biology. Published on evolution.

Good for you.

 

[MacM]

I think you're wrong here. Natural Selection reduces the population. Because the fittest survive and the rest mostly likely die or fell prey. The diversity I am talking about is different type of the same animals. An example of how this might happen is adaptation. If part of the poplutation miragrates. Then it will have to adapt to the enviroment. This will only change the gene in what they already have. For example they already have beaks. One side of the population might develop longer beaks. But they will remain birds, only they will be a litte different.

This part of the theory is on shaky grounds. If there was no chance then it had no ground, but since they say there is a chance they have ground but very shaky.

Ok, lets follow your lead here. But instead of birs lets discuss a mammal. For example a deer. Since you seem to agree that birds that migrate or have some other enviornemntal pressure will develope a bigger beak, can a deer that finds its food source such as leaves that for some reason have either began to be on taller trees develope a longer neck.?

 

[MacM]

I think you're wrong here. Natural Selection reduces the population. Because the fittest survive and the rest mostly likely die or fell prey. The diversity I am talking about is different type of the same animals. An example of how this might happen is adaptation. If part of the poplutation miragrates. Then it will have to adapt to the enviroment. This will only change the gene in what they already have. For example they already have beaks. One side of the population might develop longer beaks. But they will remain birds, only they will be a litte different.

This part of the theory is on shaky grounds. If there was no chance then it had no ground, but since they say there is a chance they have ground but very shaky.

Ok, lets follow your lead here. But instead of birds lets discuss a mammal. For example a deer. Since you seem to agree that birds that migrate or have some other enviornemntal pressure will develope a bigger beak, can a deer that finds its food source such as leaves that for some reason have either began to be on taller trees develope a longer neck.?

 

[John Connellan]

I think you're wrong here. Natural Selection reduces the population. Because the fittest survive and the rest mostly likely die or fell prey.

Thats not the best way of looking at it. It REALLY works because the poorest die. Neutral adaptations do not usually result in genetic change due to NS (the exception being in cases of competition).

The diversity I am talking about is different type of the same animals.

How can a process which REMOVES individuals increase diversity in any way?

An example of how this might happen is adaptation. If part of the poplutation miragrates.Then it will have to adapt to the enviroment. This will only change the gene in what they already have. For example they already have beaks. One side of the population might develop longer beaks. But they will remain birds, only they will be a litte different.

How about this:

there is a population of birds (100). only 20 of them have very long beaks (10cm) and 10 have very short beaks (2cm). Theres no NS working on them at the moment. The mean length of the population beaks is 6cm. Mutations generally cause beak length to change by around 75% hence the variation. Now if we add a selection pressure, say beaks need to b long to get into worm tunnels which are getting longer, then thos beirds with beaks less than 5cm are gone. The mean length of a beak is now about 8cm and mutation will cause some beaks to be 3-4cm and at the other end, 12cm. Can u see how NS causes direction?

Now what if this happens to their sexual organs and what if some birds found they didn't need to fly anymore? They lose their wings and become a different animal.

This part of the theory is on shaky grounds. If there was no chance then it had no ground, but since they say there is a chance they have ground but very shaky.

Doesn't matter. I'd like to hear it out anyway!

 

[spidergoat]

IF the environment remained unchanged, then natural variations might not be selected to such a degree that new species emerge, however, the environment can change radically both through time, and when, for instance, a species encounters an island or new habitat. Then selection can result in dramatic change. 786, how old do you think the earth is? Do you realize it's 4 billion years old? Alot can happen in that time.

 

[786]

IF the environment remained unchanged, then natural variations might not be selected to such a degree that new species emerge, however, the environment can change radically both through time, and when, for instance, a species encounters an island or new habitat. Then selection can result in dramatic change. 786, how old do you think the earth is? Do you realize it's 4 billion years old? Alot can happen in that time.

I don't know exactly how old the earth is. But many things can happen in that time. This still doesn't prove Evolution.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

This still doesn't prove Evolution.

The fossil record certainly seems in accordance with the theory of evolution.

 

[786]

Actually there are no transitional forms.