I'm guessing Richard Dawkins didn't know these things when he said evolution has never been observed in the link I posted. Also mosquitoes become resistant against pesticides because part of the population is already immune and that part of the population eventually becomes the whole population.Their isn't one case where theirs proof mosquitoes or bacteria gained resistance against something that part of the population wasn't already immune too.
How do Animals Evolve To Look Like Exact Replicas of Other Things in Nature?
- Thread starter SumBlackguyz
- Start date
I'm guessing Richard Dawkins didn't know these things when he said evolution has never been observed in the link I posted. Also mosquitoes become resistant against pesticides because part of the population is already immune and that part of the population eventually becomes the whole population.Their isn't one case where theirs proof mosquitoes or bacteria gained resistance against something that part of the population wasn't already immune too.
it has everything to do with the external environment. the environment is applying the selective pressures
OneManGang
Veteran
Mutations are completely random. There really is no mechanism built into eukaryotes to create these mutations. All a mutations occur because of errors in the repair of nucleic acid. And these errors are very common because our genetic info is relatively badly protected, so the mechanism to repair them can't keep up. Aging is thought to have a direct relationship to this failure of the repair of DNA. Most mutations produce offspring that are completely unfit for survival. A small percentage though actually are advantageous. These are the ones that produce animals fit to their environment. There is thread on the first page of higher learning called evolution basics or something. The video in there is pretty informative if you are willing to watch it. Ill find the link. I like these kinds of discussions. Im actually in a nucleic acid structure/drug design course right now where we basically study the structure and mechanisms of DNA in order to create more effective drugs.
EDIT: Natural selection is basically natures way of saying, "Hey, that mutation is pretty useful, i think i'll keep it." or "Wow that shyt is terrible. Throw it in the bushes." There's a reason white tigers are very rare in the wild. While tigers have the propensity to produce offspring with white coats, they arent efficient hunters because tigers rely on camouflage and stalking to take down their prey. A white coat is a hindrance to that tactic. They die off and dont even make it to adulthood most of the time. Think of that when you think of natural selection. The example isnt exactly water tight, but it gets the point across. Its a good way to see how evolutionary mutations and natural selection go hand in hand.
Heres the thread with the video. http://www.the-coli.com/higher-learning/41078-evolution-things-you-need-know.html
OneManGang
Veteran
Im not a biologist, im a chemist so i cant really refute that last sentence of yours. But have you ever heard of plasmids? Google that and tell me what you think.
From what I understand plasmids are little loops of DNA bacteria pass too each other and sometimes make bacteria resistant to certain things. The information for resistance would already have to be their in the DNA being transferred and evolutionist claim that the resistance evolved over thousands or millions of years which cant really be proven definitively since it requires a lot of assumptions. On a sidenote I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind about evolution I just wish more people would see how it's far from written in stone. I also like seeing other peoples viewpoints
Dark Knyght
All Star
That's the same thing I pretty much said. Part of the population was already immune due to a common ancestor that originated the mutation and it was passed down from generation to generation.
*edit*
I see your point, I made it seem the mutation came as a direct response to the pesticide. Should've explained better.
Evolution by definition is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Therefore, an individual can't evolve, but an individual may contain a trait that allows him to better adapt to said environment. This recessive trait can be passed down over generations to eventually become the dominant within the population as a whole. That change in population characteristics from the previous majority being non-resistant to a population where the population is now resistant is evolution.
Dark Knyght
All Star
Ummm, no. Natural selection is influenced by both external factors and internal factors. If there's a population of organisms that's known to survive and thrive at 70 degrees. Any increase in temperature will kill said organism. A sudden sustained increase in temperature to 80 degrees devastates the population, but 5% of the population was able to survive. Something within their genetic makeup allows them to survive. The remaining population contained a mutation in their genes which allowed them to resist the increase in temperature. This new population with the resistant genes will now be able to reproduce and thrive.
SumBlackguyz
Cacs Gonna Cac
But nobody is going to answer my question though.
Shyt like this is what im talking about. These bugs imitate a leaf in its entirety, even down to looking like a dying leaf.
When you compare evolutionary processes to other species, their camo is always an approximation, never a complete clone.
What has allowed their dna to just magically mutate millions of physical characteristics that are exclusive to leaves into these bugs. what did these bugs even look like before they turned to leaves?
Shyt like this is what im talking about. These bugs imitate a leaf in its entirety, even down to looking like a dying leaf.
When you compare evolutionary processes to other species, their camo is always an approximation, never a complete clone.
What has allowed their dna to just magically mutate millions of physical characteristics that are exclusive to leaves into these bugs. what did these bugs even look like before they turned to leaves?
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
But nobody is going to answer my question though.
Shyt like this is what im talking about. These bugs imitate a leaf in its entirety, even down to looking like a dying leaf.
When you compare evolutionary processes to other species, their camo is always an approximation, never a complete clone.
What has allowed their dna to just magically mutate millions of physical characteristics that are exclusive to leaves into these bugs. what did these bugs even look like before they turned to leaves?
Their DNA didn't magically mutate into anything. The bugs that can blend better with their leafy environment tend to not get eaten and pass their DNA to the next generation, who mate with other bugs that who have similar blending patterns. The selective pressure of blending with leafs having a linear relationship with increased survivability leads to propagation of bugs that blend in and weeding out of bugs that don't due to susceptibility to predation.
I don't see why this is do hard to understand. Remember we're talking about r-type organisms here. We're k-type organisms, meaning we live long, gestate long, have few offspring, and invest a lot of care in our offspring. Insects are r-type. They have short lives, often only weeks or months, produce a ton of offspring quickly and invest little to no care in them. When you're a biologically relatively simple organism producing hundreds of offspring over and over and them doing the same, there is the capacity for some very extreme mutations in terms of lending to marked phenotypical changes to occur.
i was not clear. im talking about the mutations that lead to natural selection, they are completely internal processes according to science yes? they are not a reaction to the external environment.
and the internal mutations are completely random lol
i think we are going to eventually find this is not the entire story, but ill leave it for now...
Dark Knyght
All Star
Yes what you said is true. Mutations and internal processes are random. The external environment or niche in which the organism resides via predation, weather condidtions, or artificial means will "select" which of these random mutations are most advantageous within the current environmental conditions. Eventually weeding out the mutations that give disadvantages since members of the population with big disadvantages will never reach reproductive maturity and as a result won't be able to pass the maladaptive genes onward. AKA survival of the fittest.
I though that Sagan video answered it pretty well. maybe you didn't watch the whole thing
it's pretty simple. the more the bug looks like a leaf, the less likely it is to get eaten. it's not like one day an insect 'mutated' into something that looks like a leaf. one day there was an insect that had markings that made it slightly resemble a leaf. those markings increased it's chance of survival, and it passed them along to it's offspring. if some of it's offspring have markings that even more resembled a leaf, then they will be even more likely to survive, and so on, until you have a bug that almost looks exactly like a leaf
what i don't get about evolution is they say humans are the long period evolution of monkeys so if we all evolved from monkeys why do they still exist shouldn't all the monkeys due to the change be all humans i know their are different types of monkeys but their are also different types of humans also
Dogs originally came from wolves. We know that because we created them. There are still wild wolves, though, right? Just think about how that happened for a second. We created a reproductively isolated population of wolves and then bred them for specific traits to be passed on, and the selection pressures for these wolves were also different because they started living among humans. That's why we can have chihuahuas in human society while the wolves in the wilds of Russia are still doing their thing.
With apes (not monkeys) that eventually became humans, it was the same. They formed reproductively isolated populations that branched off from their original groups.