How does evolution work?

[persephone1]

Everything is competing for survival with well...their life. So you stress the conditions enough, you get selection for even tiny bit better suited stuff coming out.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
I'm talking about a simple micro evolution within species. (P&N stay away!)

As you know in Galapagos (sp) island, certain birds have developed a specific curvy beak in order to drink honey from flowers with deep petals.

How is the information to 'morph' passed down to its offsprings then?

In more simple words, how does the bird start to develop a curved beak? They have no direct control of how their offsprings will be shaped physically... Does the body happen to know? If so, how?

As we know, just because we try something really hard in our lives, doesn't mean our children will be more 'adaptable' physically. (I know it's an extreme example as we are humans.)

Topic: How does evolution work? Intelligently Designed of course

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: destrekor
basically... like a frog that has 5 legs, is a mutation.... we all know this... and it isn't beneficial to the frog either. but thats why they typically don't get a mate or the gene just doesn't get passed along as its not a vital gene mutation, and sometimes its a fatal mutation anyway as it may limit the ability to survive.
but every now and then there is a mutation that just seems to provide an edge for the creature. like the giraffe example, the longer neck was a freak genetic mutation (in the first place) but it provided an edge for getting food and fared better compared to other giraffes... thus, it passed along its mutated genes.

i got that right.. right?

It's not even a mutation.
Different giraffes of the same species are naturally going to vary in neck length.. just like humans naturally vary in height.
It's like if the taller a person is, the more of an advantage they have over shorter people for survival, then the shorter people would die off, and the average height would get taller and taller.
Or here's an example my bio professor used.
A cheetah is out to get a group of people. You don't need to be the fastest to survive.. just not the slowest. As the slowest one dies off, then you're next as the slowest one.
The slow people would not be able to pass off their genes since they're dead.. and the gene pool gets filled with faster and faster genes.
No mutation is involved.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
So.. how does this explain the evolutions BETWEEN species? A briefly land-hopping fish to amphibian to lizard to warm blooded animals...
Survival of the fittest doesn't quite explain this here.

I'll refer you to an example above: chihuahuas vs. great danes. Yeah, they're still the same species, but look at how different they are from one another. Yet, they share a common ancester from about 20,000 years ago. That's an incredibly short amount of time compared to the time living things have been on earth. Imagine how different they'll look after another 20,000 years. And, then another 20 thousand years. After 100 of these twenty thousand year periods, you'll be up to 20 million years. The entire history of life on this planet is much longer than that.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

:thumbsup::laugh:

Mutation's a bitch, ain't it?

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: djheater
This is the reason evolution needs to be taught in school. PROPERLY. My 8 year old has a better grasp of it than OP.

fixed

Eh, is it really important for most people? I'd rather have them spend more time teaching science that has real-world applications for most people, i.e. physics.

Edit: Not saying evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

YES

The people who can't understand that being in an SUV is NOT safer deserve to die.
The people who know nothing about evolution or are bible thumpers don't necessarily deserve to continue to be ignorant. I haven't taken physics but I know a SUV isn't safer than a car..

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: djheater
This is the reason evolution needs to be taught in school. PROPERLY. My 8 year old has a better grasp of it than OP.

fixed

Eh, is it really important for most people? I'd rather have them spend more time teaching science that has real-world applications for most people, i.e. physics.

Edit: Not saying evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

YES

The people who can't understand that being in an SUV is NOT safer deserve to die.
The people who know nothing about evolution or are bible thumpers don't necessarily deserve to continue to be ignorant. I haven't taken physics but I know a SUV isn't safer than a car..

Actually physics would teach that an SUV is safer.. or heavier vehicles.
My professor countered this by saying that the truth to cars safety is their price. The higher the price, the more safety features are usually included.
How often have you seen someone dying in a car accident from driving one of those featherweight plastic ferraris?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Actually physics would teach that an SUV is safer.. or heavier vehicles.
My professor countered this by saying that the truth to cars safety is their price. The higher the price, the more safety features are usually included.
How often have you seen someone dying in a car accident from driving one of those featherweight plastic ferraris?

Bad example...you'd be surprised at how often they get crashed on a per-mile basis. Remember, there are few of them, and they're usually garaged.

IIRC, the Toyota Avalon is the "safest" vehicle in terms of deaths/mile. This is a reflection both of the safety of the vehicle, and the type of driver. SUVs aren't more dangerous than cars using that criteria (or safer either), but they DO kill the other driver a lot more. I wish I could find that study...

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Actually physics would teach that an SUV is safer.. or heavier vehicles.
My professor countered this by saying that the truth to cars safety is their price. The higher the price, the more safety features are usually included.
How often have you seen someone dying in a car accident from driving one of those featherweight plastic ferraris?

Bad example...you'd be surprised at how often they get crashed on a per-mile basis. Remember, there are few of them, and they're usually garaged.

IIRC, the Toyota Avalon is the "safest" vehicle in terms of deaths/mile. This is a reflection both of the safety of the vehicle, and the type of driver. SUVs aren't more dangerous than cars using that criteria (or safer either), but they DO kill the other driver a lot more. I wish I could find that study...

You missed the point of my example..

I remember seeing that SUV study. It's the way the frame is designed. It crushes the driver under impact.

 

[persephone1]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
So.. how does this explain the evolutions BETWEEN species? A briefly land-hopping fish to amphibian to lizard to warm blooded animals...
Survival of the fittest doesn't quite explain this here.

I'll refer you to an example above: chihuahuas vs. great danes. Yeah, they're still the same species, but look at how different they are from one another. Yet, they share a common ancester from about 20,000 years ago. That's an incredibly short amount of time compared to the time living things have been on earth. Imagine how different they'll look after another 20,000 years. And, then another 20 thousand years. After 100 of these twenty thousand year periods, you'll be up to 20 million years. The entire history of life on this planet is much longer than that.

Your point proves that genetic variablity exists, but species are (mostly) very well adapted to their present conditions, and so it is very unlikely to see that much change. Dog/horse breeds are all so different because the conditions were plentiful (i.e., the small dog didn't have to compete with the big dog for food).

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

genetic variation has to come from somewhere though

So everyone's kid has the EXACT same features as the parents?

Here's a real world example of accelerated evolution: dog breeding.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

Yup.
The best shaped beaks gets the food, and survives to pass their genes on. So gradually, the beaks start to differentiate to adapt to their diet.

Ok, I have a question with this, then.

You state that the curvy beak is inherently in the genes of the birds and that the birds with the curve that fits the flower wins, right? Well, (I'm assuming here) since we've mapped the human genome, wouldn't we be able to detect any dormant genes that could possibly speed up/halt evolution? Thusly, haven't we conquered evolution?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

genetic variation has to come from somewhere though

So everyone's kid has the EXACT same features as the parents?

Here's a real world example of accelerated evolution: dog breeding.

Yeah, the whole idea of selective breeding is going along the same idea as evolution -- except we're forcing it. It's sad how poorly people are being educated in evolution

Seriously, if there was no such thing as evolution, you wouldn't have issues like flu shots. Here's a good resource about evolution.

 

[Skeeedunt]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

Yup.
The best shaped beaks gets the food, and survives to pass their genes on. So gradually, the beaks start to differentiate to adapt to their diet.

Ok, I have a question with this, then.

You state that the curvy beak is inherently in the genes of the birds and that the birds with the curve that fits the flower wins, right? Well, (I'm assuming here) since we've mapped the human genome, wouldn't we be able to detect any dormant genes that could possibly speed up/halt evolution? Thusly, haven't we conquered evolution?

Though the sequencing of the human genome is complete, we're far from knowing which genes do what (i.e. what the function of the protein they encode is.) There may be a gene which controls or effects a certain trait or disease, but we don't necessarily know where it is yet.

I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question about "speeding up" evolution. Manual manipulation of DNA aside, you're basically asking asking about selective breeding of human beings. That's how you would "speed up" evolution, by only allowing people with certain beneficial traits to breed. If we were able to map every individual's DNA and fully understood which genes we wanted expressed, this would obviously make it easier to "breed better people faster". (Hopefully it goes without saying that this likely isn't something we'd want to, well, enforce as a society...)

Of course, if you are talking about scientifically modifying a person's genes, then evolution is pretty much out the window.

Edit: we know where some genes are and what they do, just not many of them.

 

[Noema]

OP: Evolution is probably my favorite topic in the world right now. However I saw this topic when it already had 4 pages of replies, some of them correct and accurate. So I won't add more to it.

However: If you are really interested in the subject, you MUST read this: The Blind Watchmaker , by Richard Dawkins. The book is aimed for non-biologists, so it's easy to follow for the layman, without being dumbed down in the process.

 

[Noema]

By the way, the philosopher Danniel Dennet has a couple of books about the subject, which I also recommend. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea he calls the theory of evolution "The best idea anyone has ever had".

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

Yup.
The best shaped beaks gets the food, and survives to pass their genes on. So gradually, the beaks start to differentiate to adapt to their diet.

Ok, I have a question with this, then.

You state that the curvy beak is inherently in the genes of the birds and that the birds with the curve that fits the flower wins, right? Well, (I'm assuming here) since we've mapped the human genome, wouldn't we be able to detect any dormant genes that could possibly speed up/halt evolution? Thusly, haven't we conquered evolution?

The map of our genome right now is more akin to a map with no legend or markings...we know SOMETHING is there, but we for the most part, don't know exactly what those genes do. It's being filled in as we speak.

And that in and of itself is a VAST oversimplification. It's not as if we have "eye" gene, "leg" gene, etc...its a horrifically complex network of interactions. Even the concept of a "gene" is a vast oversimplification...DNA does amazing things, it is not just "memory" or a "blueprint".

Speeding up/halting evolution implies that it is going somewhere - which it isnt. It has no direction, it did not go from bacteria to fish to man in a directional line...it just does, what it does.

If you're asking whether or not we'll be able to engineer humans to have the most desirable traits for any given environment...it's on the horizon. The very distant horizon...the science will get there, but whether or not it'll actually be allowed to happen in reality is an entirely different story.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Noema
By the way, the philosopher Danniel Dennet has a couple of books about the subject, which I also recommend. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea he calls the theory of evolution "The best idea anyone has ever had".

That is an excellent book, but it is FAR from a intro....definitely read the blind watchmaker first. "The selfish gene" is also quite interesting, but I get the impression than 90% of people who read it misinterpret it because of the terrible title.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Noema
By the way, the philosopher Danniel Dennet has a couple of books about the subject, which I also recommend. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea he calls the theory of evolution "The best idea anyone has ever had".

That is an excellent book, but it is FAR from a intro....definitely read the blind watchmaker first. "The selfish gene" is also quite interesting, but I get the impression than 90% of people who read it misinterpret it because of the terrible title.

Agreed. Dawkins is much more accesible. I should have mentioned that. And I agree also about the title of 'The Selfish Gene' (which is also a fascinating theory). It basically attempts (succesfully in my opinion) to explain why over 50% of the genes in a given genome don't really do anything.

I was reading Lewin's 'Genes VIII' the other day and I was happy they mentioned Dawkins theory when they were tackling the problem of all the silent genes and the introns (the introns are part of the code which don't get transcribed into mRNA, and thus, don't code for proteins) in the genome.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

Yup.
The best shaped beaks gets the food, and survives to pass their genes on. So gradually, the beaks start to differentiate to adapt to their diet.

Ok, I have a question with this, then.

You state that the curvy beak is inherently in the genes of the birds and that the birds with the curve that fits the flower wins, right? Well, (I'm assuming here) since we've mapped the human genome, wouldn't we be able to detect any dormant genes that could possibly speed up/halt evolution? Thusly, haven't we conquered evolution?

The map of our genome right now is more akin to a map with no legend or markings...we know SOMETHING is there, but we for the most part, don't know exactly what those genes do. It's being filled in as we speak.

And that in and of itself is a VAST oversimplification. It's not as if we have "eye" gene, "leg" gene, etc...its a horrifically complex network of interactions. Even the concept of a "gene" is a vast oversimplification...DNA does amazing things, it is not just "memory" or a "blueprint".

Speeding up/halting evolution implies that it is going somewhere - which it isnt. It has no direction, it did not go from bacteria to fish to man in a directional line...it just does, what it does.

If you're asking whether or not we'll be able to engineer humans to have the most desirable traits for any given environment...it's on the horizon. The very distant horizon...the science will get there, but whether or not it'll actually be allowed to happen in reality is an entirely different story.

Ah, I hadn't read this reply, BD2003. I agree completely. You make some excellent points.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

Yup.
The best shaped beaks gets the food, and survives to pass their genes on. So gradually, the beaks start to differentiate to adapt to their diet.

Ok, I have a question with this, then.

You state that the curvy beak is inherently in the genes of the birds and that the birds with the curve that fits the flower wins, right? Well, (I'm assuming here) since we've mapped the human genome, wouldn't we be able to detect any dormant genes that could possibly speed up/halt evolution? Thusly, haven't we conquered evolution?

The map of our genome right now is more akin to a map with no legend or markings...we know SOMETHING is there, but we for the most part, don't know exactly what those genes do. It's being filled in as we speak.

And that in and of itself is a VAST oversimplification. It's not as if we have "eye" gene, "leg" gene, etc...its a horrifically complex network of interactions. Even the concept of a "gene" is a vast oversimplification...DNA does amazing things, it is not just "memory" or a "blueprint".

Speeding up/halting evolution implies that it is going somewhere - which it isnt. It has no direction, it did not go from bacteria to fish to man in a directional line...it just does, what it does.

If you're asking whether or not we'll be able to engineer humans to have the most desirable traits for any given environment...it's on the horizon. The very distant horizon...the science will get there, but whether or not it'll actually be allowed to happen in reality is an entirely different story.

We actually do have an eye gene, leg gene, etc.
Read up on hox genes. It's a groundbreaking discovery. Scientists basically found this "genetic toolbox". They are able to modify the gene to give a frog a third leg, or an extra eye, or even flip their entire body cavity.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0


We actually do have an eye gene, leg gene, etc.
Read up on hox genes. It's a groundbreaking discovery. Scientists basically found this "genetic toolbox". They are able to modify the gene to give a frog a third leg, or an extra eye, or even flip their entire body cavity.

Not really. A gene is not a 'blueprint'. It's more akin to a recipe. The only thing a gene does is code for proteins to be created by the ribosomes to catalyze metabolic processes. Hundreds of different genes in hundreds of different hyper-complex interactions create, at different times of the life of an organism (and mostly during the embrionic process) certain reactions that are translated into phenotypical effects. Of course legs and feet and eyes are product of the genome those interactions between genes (the 'homebox gene families'), but it's naive and vulgar to talk about the 'right eye gene'. If a drosophila gets legs where it should have antenna, it's probably because the interactions between the genes in that particular area are related to the ones that yield their legs.

Saying that there's a gene for this and for that is a gross oversimplification that leads to people thinking about 'the gay gene' or the 'gene of evil' and such.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Noema

Originally posted by: virtualgames0


We actually do have an eye gene, leg gene, etc.
Read up on hox genes. It's a groundbreaking discovery. Scientists basically found this "genetic toolbox". They are able to modify the gene to give a frog a third leg, or an extra eye, or even flip their entire body cavity.

Not really. A gene is not a 'blueprint'. It's more akin to a recipe. The only thing a gene does is code for proteins to be created by the ribosomes to catalyze metabolic processes. Hundreds of different genes in hundreds of different hyper-complex interactions create, at different times of the life of an organism (and mostly during the embrionic process) certain reactions that are translated into phenotypical effects. Of course legs and feet and eyes are product of the genome those interactions between genes (the 'homebox gene families'), but it's naive and vulgar to talk about the 'right eye gene'. If a drosophila gets legs where it should have antenna, it's probably because the interactions between the genes in that particular area are related to the ones that yield their legs.

Saying that there's a gene for this and for that is a gross oversimplification that leads to people thinking about 'the gay gene' or the 'gene of evil' and such.

As I said.. read up on hox genes before you talk.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: jagec
No, what happens is that the birds with worse-shaped beaks don't get as much honey, and so they won't be as reproductively successful, and thus won't pass on their genes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the peculiar case of the hyena...

Yup.
The best shaped beaks gets the food, and survives to pass their genes on. So gradually, the beaks start to differentiate to adapt to their diet.

Ok, I have a question with this, then.

You state that the curvy beak is inherently in the genes of the birds and that the birds with the curve that fits the flower wins, right? Well, (I'm assuming here) since we've mapped the human genome, wouldn't we be able to detect any dormant genes that could possibly speed up/halt evolution? Thusly, haven't we conquered evolution?

The map of our genome right now is more akin to a map with no legend or markings...we know SOMETHING is there, but we for the most part, don't know exactly what those genes do. It's being filled in as we speak.

And that in and of itself is a VAST oversimplification. It's not as if we have "eye" gene, "leg" gene, etc...its a horrifically complex network of interactions. Even the concept of a "gene" is a vast oversimplification...DNA does amazing things, it is not just "memory" or a "blueprint".

Speeding up/halting evolution implies that it is going somewhere - which it isnt. It has no direction, it did not go from bacteria to fish to man in a directional line...it just does, what it does.

If you're asking whether or not we'll be able to engineer humans to have the most desirable traits for any given environment...it's on the horizon. The very distant horizon...the science will get there, but whether or not it'll actually be allowed to happen in reality is an entirely different story.

We actually do have an eye gene, leg gene, etc.
Read up on hox genes. It's a groundbreaking discovery. Scientists basically found this "genetic toolbox". They are able to modify the gene to give a frog a third leg, or an extra eye, or even flip their entire body cavity.

I'm well aware of hox genes...but to say they are "leg genes" or "eye genes" is still a vast oversimplification. Theres a LOT more that goes into making the eye than the hox gene, which has more to do with indicating where it belongs, rather than it's function. Mess with hox genes and you can grow legs where there should be antennae, but the structure of the antenna has far more than a single genetic component.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: Noema

Originally posted by: virtualgames0


We actually do have an eye gene, leg gene, etc.
Read up on hox genes. It's a groundbreaking discovery. Scientists basically found this "genetic toolbox". They are able to modify the gene to give a frog a third leg, or an extra eye, or even flip their entire body cavity.

Not really. A gene is not a 'blueprint'. It's more akin to a recipe. The only thing a gene does is code for proteins to be created by the ribosomes to catalyze metabolic processes. Hundreds of different genes in hundreds of different hyper-complex interactions create, at different times of the life of an organism (and mostly during the embrionic process) certain reactions that are translated into phenotypical effects. Of course legs and feet and eyes are product of the genome those interactions between genes (the 'homebox gene families'), but it's naive and vulgar to talk about the 'right eye gene'. If a drosophila gets legs where it should have antenna, it's probably because the interactions between the genes in that particular area are related to the ones that yield their legs.

Saying that there's a gene for this and for that is a gross oversimplification that leads to people thinking about 'the gay gene' or the 'gene of evil' and such.

As I said.. read up on hox genes before you talk.

I've read up on homebox genes recently; Lewin, Genes VIII, chapters 31, 31, 33.

Where did you read up on homebox genes? Wikipedia or Time?