Natural selection makes no sense?

[wellwisher]

What is not fully included in the current evolutionary model is the entropic force. This is a force generated by entropy and can be proven in the lab via osmosis. It is the fifth force of nature used extensively by life, but ignored within evolution. In an osmotic device, the diffusion of water in the direction of higher ionic concentration is due to an increase in entropy. The entropy of the universe has to increase and this direction of water flow increases the entropy so it helps the universe's entropy potential; spontaneously occurs. The osmotic pressure that is induced is osmotic force/area, since pressure equals force/area. This force is called the entropic force since it stems exclusively from entropy. Osmosis is considered a colligative property and is only dependent in molar concentration ions and not specific ions. It does not change with stronger or weaker ions but will generate the same entropic force.

Based on the shape of the osmotic device, the randomness of the entropy increase results in a directed force; order stemming from random. In the case of an osmotic device the force is directed opposite gravity. The living state makes use of the entropic force extensively via all its semi-permeable membranes and the movement of water. There is a sense of direction to life stemming from randomness going into an order generated by the entropic force. We live in a universe where entropy has to increase. In life, there are certain circumstances that maximize entropy better than others, with the amplifying sweet spots the goals of evolution.

The current biology approach primarily deals with the organic side of the equation. The organic is disproportionately stressed compared to the aqueous side, where the entropic force and liquid state physics plays a much more significant role. This approach creates a random bias, but lacks balance in terms of the entropic sense of direction.

For example, if you look at humans, there is a wide range of sizes, shapes and natural talents. This diversity appears random at the level of the individuals relative to the whole. But if you think in terms of the human team, this apparent variety has a practical value allowing a wider spectrum of talents for the improved adaptation of the collective whole. If there were only hunters there is a limit to how the collective can use that talent. If we have hunters, farmers, teachers, scientists, laborers, engineers, entertainers, etc., now the collective can advanced into even higher complex order. The more advanced collective order advances the individuals; civilization.

If we limited the individual randomization the group can't get as complete; amount of collective order is limited. The north is more work to live in than the south, because of winters. You need a more complex group for all the tasks so the whole can benefit the individual. White was able to randomize better and therefore had natural selection in terms of cultural order.

 

[origin]

What is not fully included in the current evolutionary model is the entropic force. This is a force generated by entropy and can be proven in the lab via osmosis. It is the fifth force of nature used extensively by life, but ignored within evolution. In an osmotic device, the diffusion of water in the direction of higher ionic concentration is due to an increase in entropy. The entropy of the universe has to increase and this direction of water flow increases the entropy so it helps the universe's entropy potential; spontaneously occurs. The osmotic pressure that is induced is osmotic force/area, since pressure equals force/area. This force is called the entropic force since it stems exclusively from entropy. Osmosis is considered a colligative property and is only dependent in molar concentration ions and not specific ions. It does not change with stronger or weaker ions but will generate the same entropic force.

Based on the shape of the osmotic device, the randomness of the entropy increase results in a directed force; order stemming from random. In the case of an osmotic device the force is directed opposite gravity. The living state makes use of the entropic force extensively via all its semi-permeable membranes and the movement of water. There is a sense of direction to life stemming from randomness going into an order generated by the entropic force. We live in a universe where entropy has to increase. In life, there are certain circumstances that maximize entropy better than others, with the amplifying sweet spots the goals of evolution.

The current biology approach primarily deals with the organic side of the equation. The organic is disproportionately stressed compared to the aqueous side, where the entropic force and liquid state physics plays a much more significant role. This approach creates a random bias, but lacks balance in terms of the entropic sense of direction.

For example, if you look at humans, there is a wide range of sizes, shapes and natural talents. This diversity appears random at the level of the individuals relative to the whole. But if you think in terms of the human team, this apparent variety has a practical value allowing a wider spectrum of talents for the improved adaptation of the collective whole. If there were only hunters there is a limit to how the collective can use that talent. If we have hunters, farmers, teachers, scientists, laborers, engineers, entertainers, etc., now the collective can advanced into even higher complex order. The more advanced collective order advances the individuals; civilization.

If we limited the individual randomization the group can't get as complete; amount of collective order is limited. The north is more work to live in than the south, because of winters. You need a more complex group for all the tasks so the whole can benefit the individual. White was able to randomize better and therefore had natural selection in terms of cultural order.

Anyone trying to understand evolution can safely ignore this post. The last line is about as goofy and off base as you can get - except for the rest of the post I guess...

 

[rodereve]

From the little I know on biology, the DNA can't change during one's lifespan. Thus your DNA can't change to make you more adaptive to the environment. That's actually the thing that makes it very hard for me to digest natural selection.

Think of DNA as a code to the formation and development of life. Although the code is conserved, it can be expressed differently depending on context (variable gene expression). Some rabbits have white fur in warmer environments, but put them in cold environments and they develop black fur (black fur absorbs heat better -- although you may wonder why polar bears are white ). This whole process eludes to phenotypic plasticity.

More importantly, some of these changes can actually be inherited by offspring. Its called epigenetics. Not all changes in gene expression are heritable though

 

[spidergoat]

Ok, but how did the first whites get created then? If two black people make a baby, it's a black one. If a black and a white make a baby, it's a brown one. But that white has to come from somewhere and the only way you can get a white when only blacks are around is if it's a person without melanin - thus an albino.

In the other hand if this was a gradual change from being black to being white, then still you need the lighter parent to come from somewhere.

They were already there. Some Africans are very dark, and some are a little lighter.

If it's just all about mutation, then how did the mutation happen to solely lower the melanin production? I can't understand how mutations can be that perfect.

Mutations happen all the time and create the slight variations upon which evolution can work. It's no more perfect than some people having brown hair and some people having black hair.

From the little I know on biology, the DNA can't change during one's lifespan. Thus your DNA can't change to make you more adaptive to the environment. That's actually the thing that makes it very hard for me to digest natural selection.

It doesn't have to change. The selection process results in greater or lesser numbers of certain genes in the gene pool. When the selection pressure is relatively uniform (everyone now living at a higher latitude), it results in universal changes to the gene pool, or what we call a recognizable race.

 

[Ophiolite]

this is my final post in this thread.

Praise be to Allah, God and YWH.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Ok, but how did the first whites get created then?

Cyanobacteria are not white, but their pigmentation is the source of their success. Thus pigmentation became one of the most critical traits to the survival of organisms at the dawn of life.

If two black people make a baby, it's a black one. If a black and a white make a baby, it's a brown one. But that white has to come from somewhere and the only way you can get a white when only blacks are around

One thing you have wrong here is the notion of dominant and recessive traits.

is if it's a person without melanin

Melanin is older than humans, therefore the trait to produce it or not produce it is probably older than humans, therefore there has likely been a trait subject to mutation for eons.

- thus an albino.

You are confusing albinism with the simple mutation in the genes for pigmentation.

In the other hand if this was a gradual change from being black to being white, then still you need the lighter parent to come From somewhere.

That assumes that humans appeared spontaneously with no genetic history which is incorrect. Variability in pigmentation is widely seen across the plant and animal kingdoms.

If it's just all about mutation, then how did the mutation happen to solely lower the melanin production? I can't understand how mutations can be that perfect. From the little I know on biology, the DNA can't change during one's lifespan.

You would need to understand mutation.

Thus your DNA can't change to make you more adaptive to the environment.

Of course it can. Pigmentation is one of the most successful in nature, aiding in camouflage, collection or rejection of solar energy and/or attraction of a mate.

That's actually the thing that makes it very hard for me to digest natural selection.

So far you are misunderstanding the mechanisms of genetics and mutation. Didn't you take biology?

 

[wellwisher]

If it's just all about mutation, then how did the mutation happen to solely lower the melanin production? I can't understand how mutations can be that perfect. From the little I know on biology, the DNA can't change during one's lifespan.

Virus can change the DNA in real time by inserting genes.

In terms of multicellular differentiation, all the cells of the body have the same DNA, but each cellular differentiation limits which of the genes are used and which are rendered inert. Neurons don't need to grow hair, even though their DNA has the genetic capacity. The genes associated with hair become inactive in neurons.

Multicellular differentiation control could be used to turn down the volume of pigmentation genes, without fully silencing the genes for pigments.

A good analogy is hair, which often thins as men grow older. The genetic expression of the hair cells change; lowers the hair volume, but does not totally shut it off.

In the summer time, when we get a tan the amount of pigmentation changes. This is an example, of external input modifying cellular differentiation. This is another way. It does not create mutations, but flips the on-off switch.

The last way can be seen with the chameleon. This lizard can modify his skin color and pattern to look like a wide variety of surroundings. This differentiation control starts at the brain. He has to first see the color and pattern goal and then the brain tweaks genetic differentiation almost cell by cell. Women who hang together can coordinate their monthly cycles, which ultimately is based on timing of genes via sensory cues.

 

[Write4U]

Think of DNA as a code to the formation and development of life. Although the code is conserved, it can be expressed differently depending on context (variable gene expression). Some rabbits have white fur in warmer environments, but put them in cold environments and they develop black fur (black fur absorbs heat better -- although you may wonder why polar bears are white ). This whole process eludes to phenotypic plasticity.

More importantly, some of these changes can actually be inherited by offspring. Its called epigenetics. Not all changes in gene expression are heritable though

Almost all changes are random glitches in matching DNA recombinations. Minor differences are result. If beneficial it survices and becomes incorporated, if detrimental, it will disappear.

I believe there are several specific prime types of evolutionary functions and processes.

Directionality of selection

Main article: Directional selection

When some component of a trait is heritable, selection will alter the frequencies of the different alleles, or variants of the gene that produces the variants of the trait. Selection can be divided into three classes, on the basis of its effect on allele frequencies.[66]

Directional selection occurs when a certain allele has a greater fitness than others, resulting in an increase of its frequency. This process can continue until the allele is fixed and the entire population shares the fitter phenotype. It is directional selection that is illustrated in the antibiotic resistance example above.

Far more common is stabilizing selection (which is commonly confused with purifying selection[67][68]), which lowers the frequency of alleles that have a deleterious effect on the phenotype – that is, produce organisms of lower fitness. This process can continue until the allele is eliminated from the population. Purifying selection results in functional genetic features, such as protein-coding genes or regulatory sequences, being conserved over time due to selective pressure against deleterious variants.

Finally, a number of forms of balancing selection exist, which do not result in fixation, but maintain an allele at intermediate frequencies in a population. This can occur in diploid species (that is, those that have homologous pairs of chromosomes) when heterozygote individuals, who have different alleles on each chromosome at a single genetic locus, have a higher fitness than homozygote individuals that have two of the same alleles. This is called heterozygote advantage or overdominance, of which the best-known example is the malarial resistance observed in heterozygous humans who carry only one copy of the gene for sickle cell anemia. Maintenance of allelic variation can also occur through disruptive or diversifying selection, which favors genotypes that depart from the average in either direction (that is, the opposite of overdominance), and can result in a bimodal distribution of trait values. Finally, balancing selection can occur through frequency-dependent selection, where the fitness of one particular phenotype depends on the distribution of other phenotypes in the population. The principles of game theory have been applied to understand the fitness distributions in these situations, particularly in the study of kin selection and the evolution of reciprocal altruism.[69][70]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Selection_and_genetic_variation

 

[Yazata]

If the mutation is an asset to the being's survival, other beings without the mutation will die and the mutated will be the new "stronger" kind.

Animals exploit what are called 'ecological niches'. In other words, they occupy particular physical environments, eat particular kinds of food, avoid particular predator species and so on. So mutations that make individuals more effective at living that specialized kind of life are going to have a selective advantage. Over time, we'd expect to see the newer variants representing more and more of the total population. That's one way that evolution can work.

But suppose that a mutation makes it possible for an animal to eat a new kind of food. If that new source of food is abundant and not heavily exploited by other animals, it might be advantageous for individuals to move into that new ecological niche and specialize in eating the new food. But that doesn't mean that all the rest of the animals, which might be better adapted than the new variant is to eating the old food, are therefore "weak" or destined to disappear. What might happen over time in this second situation is the original species bifurcating, with the older variant continuing to leave its offspring and eating food A, with the new variant branching off into a new species, leaving its own somewhat different offspring eating food B.

In other words, a new species appearing doesn't automatically imply the obsolescence and replacement of its ancestral species. If a species is already well adapted to its mode of life, then there might not be any reason why it needs to change.

We see that in the fossil record. Some kinds of animals appear little changed today compared to their ancestors millions of years ago. (At least anatomically, it's harder to speak about biochemical changes or changes in disease immunities and stuff.) If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[James R]

If two black people make a baby, it's a black one. If a black and a white make a baby, it's a brown one.

Well, no.

Genetics is more complicated than that.

If it's just all about mutation, then how did the mutation happen to solely lower the melanin production? I can't understand how mutations can be that perfect.

First, there may be a number of genes involved, not just one. And those genes may have effects other than just on melanin production. So, there's unlikely to be anything "perfect" about it, though it's not impossible that one gene codes for a specific trait.

 

[Write4U]

Well, no. Genetics is more complicated than that.

First, there may be a number of genes involved, not just one. And those genes may have effects other than just on melanin production. So, there's unlikely to be anything "perfect" about it, though it's not impossible that one gene codes for a specific trait.

A perfect example is the mutation of two ape chromoseomes into a single human chromosome which may be instrumental in the evolutionary growth size and complexity of the brain.

6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).

Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism...http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

In this case two seperate chromosomes accidentally joined and the resulting compound chromosome had unexpected benefits.

It is in fact a clear case of accidental irreducible complexity, but not of the components individually.

 

[Cyperium]

What is not fully included in the current evolutionary model is the entropic force. This is a force generated by entropy and can be proven in the lab via osmosis. It is the fifth force of nature used extensively by life, but ignored within evolution. In an osmotic device, the diffusion of water in the direction of higher ionic concentration is due to an increase in entropy. The entropy of the universe has to increase and this direction of water flow increases the entropy so it helps the universe's entropy potential; spontaneously occurs. The osmotic pressure that is induced is osmotic force/area, since pressure equals force/area. This force is called the entropic force since it stems exclusively from entropy. Osmosis is considered a colligative property and is only dependent in molar concentration ions and not specific ions. It does not change with stronger or weaker ions but will generate the same entropic force.

Based on the shape of the osmotic device, the randomness of the entropy increase results in a directed force; order stemming from random. In the case of an osmotic device the force is directed opposite gravity. The living state makes use of the entropic force extensively via all its semi-permeable membranes and the movement of water. There is a sense of direction to life stemming from randomness going into an order generated by the entropic force. We live in a universe where entropy has to increase. In life, there are certain circumstances that maximize entropy better than others, with the amplifying sweet spots the goals of evolution.

The current biology approach primarily deals with the organic side of the equation. The organic is disproportionately stressed compared to the aqueous side, where the entropic force and liquid state physics plays a much more significant role. This approach creates a random bias, but lacks balance in terms of the entropic sense of direction.

For example, if you look at humans, there is a wide range of sizes, shapes and natural talents. This diversity appears random at the level of the individuals relative to the whole. But if you think in terms of the human team, this apparent variety has a practical value allowing a wider spectrum of talents for the improved adaptation of the collective whole. If there were only hunters there is a limit to how the collective can use that talent. If we have hunters, farmers, teachers, scientists, laborers, engineers, entertainers, etc., now the collective can advanced into even higher complex order. The more advanced collective order advances the individuals; civilization.

If we limited the individual randomization the group can't get as complete; amount of collective order is limited. The north is more work to live in than the south, because of winters. You need a more complex group for all the tasks so the whole can benefit the individual. White was able to randomize better and therefore had natural selection in terms of cultural order.

I think evolution can be seen as "reverse osmosis", where the power to drive the reverse osmosis comes from the survival of the fittest, it is a great drive to survive which overcomes nature's drive towards chaos.

Needless to say the overall effects still increases entropy though, no system is so efficient as to create more order without creating more disorder in the long run.