Natural selection merely only eliminates weak or unsuited individuals within a species that are unable to adapt to the natural condtions of their habitat. It does not produce new species, new genetic information, of new organs.
Natural selection merely only eliminates weak or unsuited individuals within a species that are unable to adapt to the natural condtions of their habitat. It does not produce new species, new genetic information, of new organs.
The resistant strain is already present in a small number of the bacteria. As the nonresistant bacteria die, the resistant bacteria begin to mutiply.
Resistance doesn't come from mutations but from genetic material that has always existed within its gene pool.
There is one Cambrian fossil in the Smithsonian Institute basement that contains a cordate scale that is my direct ancestor, but even the chance of that was remote.
I have a B.S. in Chemistry/minor in Biology. I graduated Magna Cum Laude with a 3.76 GPA.
How is that pertinent to the discussion?
No, I was laughing at you. I thought we were talking about evolution, not natural selection. There is a distinction.
Oh and I would say your degree and level of accomplishment in biology/chemistry is very pertininet to this discussion.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
There are two distinct processes to understand:
Individuals in a population may have different characteristics due to inherited characteristics or genetic mutations. This is to say that there is significant variety in the characteristics of individuals in a population.
If a particular individual has characteristics that give them a survival or reproductive advantage over their peers, they are more likely to survive and create a new generation with the advantageous characteristic.
Throw in an environmental change (say, antibiotics, coupled with patients who frequently don't bother finishing their prescriptions) and you change the rules for which characteristics provide the greatest survival advantage; now any amount of resistance to bacteria, regardless of whether it is inherited or mutative, trumps any characteristic which may previously have been advantageous (say, faster reproductive cycles).
Note that this process is indeed 'microevolution' and is both well documented and established beyond much doubt. The question of macroevolution (eg - how can new species evolve with different numbers of chromosomes?) is harder, and more based on things like fossil evidence. But there is certainly supportive, if not conclusive evidence in things like mules, humans with Klinefelter's syndrome and other chromosomal additions and deletions. Many such individuals are theselves sterile, but it is far from impossible for an individual with major genetic differences as compared to the parental generation to in fact be viable and survive.
If you can read biology literature, and conclude that mutation producing changes is an impossibility...
edit, I really don't know how to finish that sentence, because that part is just so obvious...
If it helps you explain your test, sure. Since you deny that organisms have evolved, let me offer you an example that you can accept: a sorting algorithm produced by genetic algorithm techniques. What test do you have that would distinguish that from a sorting algorithm written by a human programmer?
You seem to think it is, because you answered his questions.
I don't care if you have a PhD in seven different natural sciences, including biology. You're blinded by your faith. You have fundamental misunderstandings of evolutionary biology despite your minor in biology. You quote mine, you forward red herrings, you make strawmen. You're intellectually dishonest, you ignore evidence of reality whenever it challenges your faith. You see what you want to see, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever make you change your mind.
You're the most pathetic sort of zealot - you're so insecure in your faith you can't even respect it for its own merits - you have to justify it as something it isn't.
Yes, but the mule is incapable of reproducing itself. It's a hybrid, not a new species.
When a female mule does give birth, it was because it was bred to a male horse or donkey. In such cases, the offspring is 3/4 horse or donkey; it will not be a mule.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
In the case of a mule. A mule isn't the only conceivable case: it's an example that proves the plausibility of species developing by hybridization. Many plant species develop this way, and are perfectly capable of reproducing.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Being incapable of reproducing itself, a mule can't really be called a species; the extension of the argument is that it would be impossible for a new species to develop this way, and that is clearly a specious argument.
You didn't define a species, though I appreciate the pun. Note other 'hybrids' are perfectly capable of reproducing.
Any number of crop plants are 'hybrids' between two or more 'species'. Ligers & leopons are common examples of fertile 'hybrids'. The two African elephant 'species' frequently hybridize and produce fertile offspring. In primates, many of the gibbon 'species' are capable of producing fertile hybrids, as are multiple different macaque species. And I forgot the wolphin, a fertile hybrid of a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale.
Please, define a species.
Please, define a species.
Although the rest of this site is concerned with feline hybrids, it is worth mentioning some of the other mammal hybrids which are bred from time to time, either deliberately or by accident. Hybrids can only occur where the species are closely enough related enough for the egg and sperm to result in a viable embryo. Where the two species are very closely related, the hybrids may even been partially or fully fertile. In the laboratory, vole species are sometimes hybridised during research into genetic traits. Some hybrids are bred for curiosity or public display, others are bred by researchers involved in genetic researcher and a few occur naturally - usually where the animals are housed together or where a same-species mate is not available.
Link
So, are you arguing that the existence of hybrid animals "proves" macroevolution?
No, I'm arguing that there's no such thing as a species. What we call a 'species' is an example of humans imposing a subjective categorization upon an objective reality for practical purposes. Thus, there is no real, clear-cut delineation between 'micro'- & 'macro'evolution, because there are no real, clear-cut delineations between different organisms.
You've stated, "Natural selection is incapable of causing organisms to evolve from one basic kind to another. While genetics permit a wide variety of specific features within the limits of a particular kind, the range of variation is limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular "kind". There has never been oberved any changes across kinds, ie, a dog becoming a cat. New varieties may be established, but not new kinds."
You use the terms 'kind' & 'variety' as if there is some distinction between them, though you have neither defined nor described them in an objective way, other than to state dogs and cats are different kinds. Fertile hybrids are nothing more than examples of how there really is no such thing as a species - only different organisms with varying degrees of genetic dissimilarity. This point is further elucidated by the fact that human insulin genes can be spliced into bacteria, which are then grown in vats to produce Humulin. Humans and bacteria are about as genetically dissimilar as two organisms can get, yet, we find that there are basic similarities in the mechanics of their life processes.
What is your objective definition of a basic kind? Failing to provide that, can you argue that 'micro'evolution does not, in fact, occur?
And in response to your erroneous statement, "1. ...However, mutations do not create new genetic potential, and, in addition, they are small, random, and harmful to the genetic code", I would like to know where you've read that mutations don't create genetic variation, are always small, and always harmful to the mutant.
I'd also like to know where someone can get a minor in biology and graduate with a 3.76 yet have such fundamental misunderstandings of basic biology.
You've stated, "Natural selection is incapable of causing organisms to evolve from one basic kind to another. While genetics permit a wide variety of specific features within the limits of a particular kind, the range of variation is limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular "kind". There has never been oberved any changes across kinds, ie, a dog becoming a cat. New varieties may be established, but not new kinds."
You use the terms 'kind' & 'variety' as if there is some distinction between them, though you have neither defined nor described them in an objective way, other than to state dogs and cats are different kinds. Fertile hybrids are nothing more than examples of how there really is no such thing as a species - only different organisms with varying degrees of genetic dissimilarity. This point is further elucidated by the fact that human insulin genes can be spliced into bacteria, which are then grown in vats to produce Humulin. Humans and bacteria are about as genetically dissimilar as two organisms can get, yet, we find that there are basic similarities in the mechanics of their life processes.
What is your objective definition of a basic kind? Failing to provide that, can you argue that 'micro'evolution does not, in fact, occur?
And in response to your erroneous statement, "1. ...However, mutations do not create new genetic potential, and, in addition, they are small, random, and harmful to the genetic code", I would like to know where you've read that mutations don't create genetic variation, are always small, and always harmful to the mutant.
I'd also like to know where someone can get a minor in biology and graduate with a 3.76 yet have such fundamental misunderstandings of basic biology.
I have a question. Comparing humans to apes: How similar are the two flavors of DNA strands? I've heard that they are over 99% similar, but I don't believe everything I hear. As far as I understand, the double helix of the DNA strand is composed of Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymin. Each rung of the pseudo-ladder has four of these amino acids, with only two pairings possible. How many "rungs" are in the human ladder and how many in the Ape's DNA ladder?
The double helix of a DNA strand is indeed composed of the four nucleotides, adenine, guanine, cytosine & thymine. Those compounds are called nitrogenous bases (not amino acids). Adenine only binds to thymine, guanine only binds to cytosine. The DNA ladders of all of the great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, and humans) each have about 3 billion rungs.
Most of those rungs, however, don't do anything (that we know about yet).
Figures on the similarity between human & chimp DNA are given anywhere from 96-99%, based on different analytical/comparative techniques. The take home message, however, is that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to anything else.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter