Evolution: time for some change?

Originally posted by Canute
So computer models are false. There's something else at work. Or is it just an infinite regression of genetic programming?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that computer models are false.
I would say that it is difficult to take into account ALL of the variables, interactions, and parameters at play in a particular system.

Just look at the Pharmecutical industry.
They spend millions on R&D trying to predict how a drug will behave in the human body. (a closed system)

They use math models, computer simulations, and even trial tests on actual humans they still cant get their stats over 70%.
 
Last edited:
i dont see the validity in the comparison tho
computer models are programmed. all you got to do is keep track of the code from the first line to the last. stuff is either on or off. in the case of the human body, i doubt if anyone claims we have a complete understanding of anatomy
 
Re: Re: Evolution: time for some change?

Originally posted by copper
Of course some stages are more important than others. When an organism reaches sexual development and passes on its genes, it doesn't need to be around any more.
Click to expand...

why are our grandparents around then?
 
Re: Re: Re: Evolution: time for some change?

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
why are our grandparents around then?
Click to expand...

because we, as humans, have alot of cultural information that needs to be passed on for survival. Information which isn't passed on in the genes.
If all of our survival mechanisms were included in our genetic code, then I bet we wouldn't have grandparents around. Just like most non-social animal species.
 
Re: Re: Re: Evolution: time for some change?

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
why are our grandparents around then?
Click to expand...

Only beacuse we're afraid to die. We have them around becuase we've become a compassionate species with high importance on family. That is something that is environmental (we learn it from our parents). It is absolutely not genetic.

As for imparting "cultural information" on to the next generation, I think that has a minimal (if any) effect on the evolution of a species.

If you think of species other than humans there is really no reason to keep around older individuals. If fact, they're usually the first ones to be picked off by predators.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evolution: time for some change?

Originally posted by copper
It is absolutely not genetic.
Click to expand...

couldn't 'compassion' have a genetic component? Possibly a combination of genes that we havent considered?

I mean, if a species treasures its older members, and those older members then impart crucial knowledge that will then allow for greater success in mating/survival, then isnt that valid?
 
I suppose, but that would be like saying personality is genetic, right? Which I believe is not. However, I'm not up on my "twins separated at birth" psycological profiles. Has anyone done studies to see if they have similar personality traits? I seem to remember that maybe they do (laughs, hobbies, etc). But I think, overall, the most important traits for survival are instictual. Those for sociailly acceptable behavior (i.e. keeping our elders around) are learned.
 
this isnt exactly my area of specialised knowledge, but...

"couldn't 'compassion' have a genetic component?"
"I suppose, but that would be like saying personality is genetic, right?"
"Those for sociailly acceptable behavior (i.e. keeping our elders around) are learned."

i was under the distinct impression that we have a capacity for empathy and compassion, and it is present from the earliest ages (and we also have a capacity for nastiness etc.) We also have the need and desire for interpersonal contact and groups and so on, such that I thought all that was instinctive, therefore genetic, and the keeping your elders going is due to those feelings and instincts acting upon the social set up. Ie your genes provide the scaffolding, and culture and personal experience flesh it all out.
 
Originally posted by guthrie
this isnt exactly my area of specialised knowledge, but...

"couldn't 'compassion' have a genetic component?"
"I suppose, but that would be like saying personality is genetic, right?"
"Those for sociailly acceptable behavior (i.e. keeping our elders around) are learned."

i was under the distinct impression that we have a capacity for empathy and compassion, and it is present from the earliest ages (and we also have a capacity for nastiness etc.) We also have the need and desire for interpersonal contact and groups and so on, such that I thought all that was instinctive, therefore genetic, and the keeping your elders going is due to those feelings and instincts acting upon the social set up. Ie your genes provide the scaffolding, and culture and personal experience flesh it all out.
Click to expand...
I think that's probably wrong. 'Compassion' and 'empathy' have never been observed, and they have no place in neo-Darwinist theory. However observable behaviour that might be conjectured to arise from compassion or empathy is allowed.
 
back to topic then:

gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium.

a hot topic creating many flaming debates. That is from a population biology perspective.

Within the developmental biology perspective the problem doesn't really appear to be that great. As we have mentioned before we can have an accumulation of mutations because of the modularity of developmental systems. This can at one point facilitate fast and large changes in the morphology. Also it is claimed that mutations in regulatory genes can also create large changes. It seems therefore that we have the best of two worlds that can explain fats changes in morphology.

In the end it is however not about who is best...population biology or developmental biology. There are currently trying to get together and make a new baby. The baby hasn't quite been born yet though, so we could discuss what the baby might look like. It could be a real ugly one.
 
genetic changes do not always mean phenotypocal changes.
Click to expand...
If Elevation of blood sugar as in diabetes is a phenotypocal change or a genetic change. Can high BS be a responsible factor for genetic changes. Don't relate insulin changes along with it.

Now, elevation of insulin as in diabetes is a phenotypocal change or genetic change. Can high insulin be a responsible factor for genetic changes. Now don't relate blood sugar with it.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Kumar
If Elevation of blood sugar as in diabetes is a phenotypocal change or a genetic change. Can high BS be a responsible factor for genetic changes. Don't relate insulin changes along with it.

Now, elevation of insulin as in diabetes is a phenotypocal change or genetic change. Can high insulin be a responsible factor for genetic changes. Now don't relate blood sugar with it.
Click to expand...

i think you are mixing up your terminology once again. Diabetes is an acquired disease, not an evolutionary adaptation or an example of polyphenism.
 
Frankly, In Diabetes two changes takes place in type2. First, the blood sugar increases, second, the insulin secretion in blood also increases side by side. Now which of these two will be the responsible factor which can cause additional genetic manifestations/hereditory inheritance or additional polyphenism. Sugar or Insulin?
 
Last edited:
You are right, sorry. Please give reply in that tread as it is very important. I am weak in language specially technical language.
 
A confusing group of terms (directed, adaptive, selection-induced, Cairnsian) describing mutations has spread in the scientific literature. As I see it, two basic areas can be distinguished: (1) an increase in the beneficial mutation occurring in stressed organisms; and (2) the imposition of a specific selection on large numbers of organisms in order to find and amplify certain novel mutations. The first aspect is most important to the evolution/creation discussion, the second to the pharmaceutical industry.

In the September 1997 issue of Scientific American, Tim Beardsley reviewed the current Adaptive Mutation situation. The possibility that living organisms possess the ability to select for beneficial mutations when stressed has challenged the conventional notion that mutations are purely random events and overwhelmingly harmful. The starting point was a 1988 article by Cairns et al. In those experiments, bacteria deprived of the ability to utilize lactose were plated onto media with only that food source available. Cairns reported a significant increase in the occurrence of mutations that restored the lactose utilization ability compared with the same bacteria living with other sugars available.

The most conservative explanation is that cells may simply sustain higher rates of random mutations (hypermutation) under stress. This may be for no other reason than that the resting bacteria experience a breakdown of their normal biochemical processes. Therefore, rare beneficial mutations will numerically occur more often. A more radical explanation is that the genetic tool box of cells selectively mutates portions of its DNA with a much higher likelihood of achieving beneficial results. A debate of these issues can be found in Science. In my opinion, the weight of evidence seems to be on the side of non-random mutation (shades of Lamark!)
 
Hey everyone, this is my first post here so, huzzah for me.

First, development is important to the evolution of morphologies, but this is only really a matter of the power of selection on the contributing genes. So development doesn't appear to play any direct role in heritable change other than through selection. And so I don't really see how development is integral to defining evolution, though I'm happy to hear any newer, better definitions :)

I do agree population genetics has created a narrow definition of evolution though, but because it is based purely on genes, rather than including all the rest of the inherited material. At the time that population genetics was developed, pretty much nothing was known of molecular biology. We have a better idea now, inherited material not only comes in neat packets that give rise to phenotypic traits but also functions in the control and structure of material itself. I think the definition should be broadened to include all of the inherited material, perhaps something simple like: the changes in heritable material present in the offspring of a parent population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top