Ok so I got to thinkin about it and I guess I want to understand it more, I have some thoughts in my head but I want to understand how yall define them to see if my thoughts fit the actual idea...

I am lookin for a complete understanding of this Natural selection process that is the produces evolution. I would like to hear how it works and what its purpose is.

You might be thinking about it wrong. I wouldnt think about it as having a purpose, I think about it as more just the most likely result.

There is some sort of variance within a population of any species. That basically means, that any two organisms of a species are distinguishable. Now, it's more likely that the organism whose variance is best suited for the environment will survive, maybe not in the short run bc of outside circumstances. Most likely in the long run.

Over time, as this trait gets passed on genetically, this variance will help that organism live on. This means there will be a higher and higher likelihood of seeing the trait. Theoreticallly, the trait should be in every member of the population at a certain time, and this constitutes evolution.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, maybe be a little more specific as to what you're looking for.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins is the book you want. Read it, or something similar.


So. Genetic mutations occur at random within any given population. Usually a mutation will cause that specific animal to die, but sometimes it won't. Sometimes the mutation will be a small change which, given that this population has limited resources, will cause that animal to prosper.

Traits are inherited from the parents. Animals which have this beneficial mutation will tend to live longer and have more babies. Their babies will tend to share this new bodily feature with their parent. Those members of the population which have the most helpful mutation will tend to produce the most babies, and over generations this new feature will become common among all members of that population.

But, to take an example, for the giraffe to grow its long neck (assuming that species once had a short neck) would take hundreds of thousands of years at the very least.

Natural selection can't have a purpose any more than the wind can have a purpose. Species aren't TRYING to "improve" or build new bodily features. It just happens.

I might be.

Ok so lets clarify something?
We should see a trait that "improves" the organism helping it to live and this will cause evolution?

So is this evolution within the organism (such as adaptation) or does it cause the organism to evolve into a "greater" organism?




so if it doesnt have a purpose does that make it random? Not tryin to argue just tryin to understand your thoughts

I like to add in here a little fallicy that I call "perfect adaption fallicy" (maybe it has a more scientific name).

It involves the belief that because the species has survived, the genetic makeup makes up a perfect species for that enviorment. The truth is that there may be flaws in the makeup that the species has survived.

For example in humans the windpipe is one of our great flaws. We are one of the few creatures on the earth that can choke to death on our food. Also our eyes are pretty poor when compaired to other animals (both in distance, and that we have blind spots in our vision).

I bring it up because alot of people at times confuse survival of the fittest, for survival of the most perfect.

1. a random mutation happens. in terms of how a species ability to cope with its environment changes because of the mutation, the mutation is either neutral, detrimental, or beneficial to the individual with the mutation.

2. if the mutation is detrimental to an individual's ability to cope with its environment, it and its offspring (if any) will have a diminished chance of survival and a diminished chance of passing on the mutation.

3. if the mutation is benefical to an individual's ability to cope with its environment, it and its offspring will have an increased chance of survival and a increased chance of passing on the mutation

so within a species, environmental pressure tends to weed out detrimental mutations and allow benefical ones to thrive. this is the simple version of course. there is a lot more complexity involved - environmental pressures for a given species are frequently changing, mutation rates probably vary, sizes of interbreeding populations of species are critical, etc.

Yes and this is one of the stronger arguments against a Creator god. Why would he have made things so clumsily?

Here's a fairly poor analogy, but it gets the point across: it's random as much as poker is random. The cards fall at random, but the game as a whole is not a random process. Likewise, mutations occur at random (or by God's hand, if you like) but the process by which animals evolve is quite the opposite of random; evolution occurs because animals DON'T just live and die at random....those more suited to their environments live longer, have more babies, and pass their traits down to those babies.

Something that hasnt been mentioned, is if this beneficial trait should spread throughout the population of an organism, then why do we observe so many species on earth?

Is it mostly geographical? If there is someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject, I've always wondered.

That is sort an opinion though, I mean for all we know god is like "I don't want that group to eat with such big bites, looks gross. I know the windpipe"

Remember its us who see the idea of something being made "with percision" or "clumsily" is in our eyes.

Using a better example, the lemming clearly has a flaw that when it disperse it will at times basicly commit suicide in the process. That flaw has probably in the end help the lemmings more than hurt them because they don't overpopulate an area.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, OMG that's the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

Didn't God make us in his image, and isn't he perfect? God doesnt eat big bites? Sounds like kind of a ridiculous claim to make, but whatever. You're trying to back peddle a bit, I'm amused though.

I'm not backpeddling and you do know it was basicly a joke.

Look I do not believe in ID theory. My problem with it is the old "the glasses fit our nose, therefore the nose is perfect" part that typically comes out somewhere.

To say "look this bit of us is perfect, therefore clearly designed" is wrong.

Also "look this bit of us doesn't work quite right, therefore no god" is also wrong.

It is entirely geographical/environmental.

In some cases, yes. In other cases, no. There are numerous examples of traits within a species which are either not beneficial in any observed way, or which are extremely roundabout or overly complicated.



I don't know anything about lemmings, but I think it is more likely that their species has continued to survive IN SPITE of this ridiculous suicidal activity. This would be an example of "clumsy evolution."


On the flip side, if in fact lemmings somehow evolved in such a way that a random selection of the population jumps off a cliff, and the rest of the population as a result has enough food etc for everybody, then that would also be an example of "clumsy evolution." What sort of twisted Creator would cause a species to have an unending overpopulation problem, and solve it by having the excess animals kill themselves, by acccident, all at once?




I didn't mean to say ..."therefore no god." That's unprovable. What I should have said was that this clumsiness, which can be observed in any variety of species curently existing, is more proof of evolution.

Natural selection is not process which necessarily creates animals which are perfectly suited to their environment (or to anything), and the resulting imperfections are clearly visible.

lol the suicide thing is a total myth. the lemming population varies in large cycles because they have the benefical (for the population) genetic trait of expending less energy on breeding when less food is available (kinda the opposite of humans..). natural selection can work both on individuals and populations.

No the suicide thing is true, I'm not talking about them jumping off cliffs.

From wikipedia: In fact, the behavior of lemmings is much the same as that of many other rodents which have periodic population booms and then disperse in all directions, seeking the food and shelter that their natural habitat cannot provide. (The Australian Long-haired Rat is one example.) The actual reason for their 'suicide' deaths is because these mass migrations may last many months and the lemmings become too tired to avoid cliff edges or swim when they normally could.

Granted I probably should of said "cause them to die" and not "commit suicide". But the point is that they do die out because of the way they disperse, but that it does help the lemming in the end.

Oh, Tim I understand the point, I'm just saying the one can always argue the "god wanted it that way" of design, so mentioning the perfection/clumsiness of design becomes mute when agruing for/against creation.

It DOESN'T necessarily help the lemmings as a species in the end.






By those standards, it is totally impossible to ever argue against creationism. I will concede that this point doesn't necessarily negate creationism, but it does give further proof of evolution.

Ok, granted. I guess I'm in a devil advocate mood today or something.

so according to evolution

if there is a "detrimental evolution" should we expect that species to survive? and for how long?

Also for a species that "naturally evolves" are they staying as the same species or are they evolving into another species?

Your question is better stated as a "detrimental mutation." Evolution is a term that describes the overall process which combines mutations and concept of "survival of the fittest." So, to answer your question, yes, of course there can be detrimental mutations. The survival of an individual with one of these "bad" mutations depends on how "bad" the mutation is and the extent to which it would in inhibit the survival of the individual. Of course, if the mutation is minor enough, it may remain within a species as a totally unnecessary trait. So, to answer your question, it depends.




Don't think as a "species" as such a discrete thing. There is no line that a species will cross when it becomes another species. It will gradually evolve and change and, looking back after millions of years, one can declare that it has become a new "species," but really it is a gradual and continuous process.

If a trait was so detrimental that it would threaten the survival of the population, it is highly unlikely that this trait would become widespread throughout that population. This is because, if the trait were causing individual members to have a tough time surviving, they also would have a tough time reproducing and passing this trait on.



Many evolutionary biologists believe that evolutionary change occurs in relatively short periods of time.

so than all changes that occur for teh good make the new creature theoretically superior to the creature it is evolving from correct?

It depends on what you mean by superior. A change for the good is something that gives it a better chance of survival within its given environment.

basically what i mean is that for example...since evolutionist think that man is a descendent of the ape...that each group got progressively more advanced until we came about

Is this what you mean?




I think this is a photo that everyone is familiar with.

basically...yeah...so from this you would say that we got smarter and smarter until humans came to be correct?

Ok, I got to correct this. Man is not descended from ape. Man and ape are decended from a common ancestor. Basicly we are cousins with the ape, not there were apes and from apes later came man.

I, in turn, gotta correct you. Homo sapiens are apes technically. The term ape usually refers to gorillas etc, but humans are apes too.

so using this we would say that there are multiple organisms that advanced from ape to humans? since we cannot just make the leap right?

I was thinking more of the gorillas so thanks for the correction. I do think though if you ask most people when you mention we evolve from apes, they think gorillas and not the entire Hominoidea superfamily.




I was thinking more of gorillas at the time.

Here is the list of the ape family tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hominoid_taxonomy_7.png

It's unclear what you mean by "multiple organisms." But no, we cannot just make the leap....it is a verrrrrrrrrry slow process, measured by human standards.

what i meant was it didnt go ape --->humans

according to yall it went ape-->x-->y--->z....-->n-->humans right?

with each getting more advanced until we came to be right?

Something like that, except replace "ape" with monkey or something.

So then each generation is more evolved and more advanced correct?

Not necessarily each generation. In fact, certainly not each generation.

I sure Tim will correct me if I'm wrong (I hope I do better this post), but remember there may be (what could be considered) negative mutations that do not outright destory that generation.

As far as I know when we use term terms like "more evolved", its more "first this species, then later this species with this mutation"

What I'm interested in, any idea what causes what cultural mutations/differences (the differences between asian and european bees for example).

so we have species that evolve into lesser species? doesnt make any sense

A generation is like between you and your parents. You havent evolved ahead of your parents.

It takes hundreds of generations for something to have evolved.

cultural mutations? you mean what causes differences in behavior? if that's what you're asking, natural selection works on that too. instinctive behavior evolves in (roughly) the same way as outward appearance.

different but closely related species are different in both ways (behavior and appearance) because their populations became almost, if not completely genetically isolated from each other, and the path of their evolution diverged over time.

Petroia made a good comment on this, but it should also be pointed out that there is really no such thing as lesser or greater when referring to speciation. "Greater" necessarily follows "lesser," since what we call greater is the newer species. However it isn't better than the last species in any objective way. It has simply evolved to better fit its changing environment.

Human beings are not better than monkeys or mice....we are simply different.




Agreed. "More evolved" does not mean that a species is closer to reaching some pinnacle or endpoint.

The key is not to thing of a greater or lesser species, there are only new species.

I know alot of people believe "man evolved to the top", but there real is no top. The easy way to prove that is to take man out of it.

Which is closer to the top: Giraffe or Elephant, Spider or Caterpiller, Tiger or Bear.

Each species will evolve in its own way, no one can objectivly argue one type is greater than the other.

but again this doesnt make sense.

We still have monkeys around today. But evolution infers that these "transitional" species were in between us yet we have none of those around. Those species would be much closer in genetic makeup than a monkey yet these species that are just one level below our species could not survive while a far less advanced species in the monkey does advance.

We obviously know that these other species didnt last all that long. So was this just all bad evolution and we were by random a huge genetic jump to get to our level? None of these species could outlast its predecessor the monkey yet we came from something like that. Does nobody see a problem with this line of thinking?

We didn't evolve from Guerillas or Chimps or Monkeys or anything that is living now. Rather, all of us evolved from a common ancestor which no longer exists because it involved into all of us. Each of the great apes evolved independently from one another from a common ancestor due to their environment. They chanced to fit the niche in which they lived.

The thing to keep in mind is that our ancestors would be suited to the same things that we were but to a lesser extent. Homo erectus and homo sapiens were essentially chasing the same rabbit but homo sapiens were better at it and as such flourished while homo erectus could no longer compete.

Other monkeys on the other hand had different methods for survival that didn't necessarily compete with the higher species. While homo sapiens could create weapons to hunt game they would have problems eating fruit high in a tree for instance.

Another factor is that it's not as if the stepping stones to being human went extinct. It is entirely probable that breeding between species occured and that the "good" genes won out over time.

Did you spell it like that on purpose? I thought it was funny.




Actually it is generally impossible for species to interbreed. In the few cases where it is possible (horses and donkeys, lions and tigers) the offspring are nearly always sterile, so regarding speciation those offspring would not matter.

I'm glad you liked it. No, that was an accident. I can't spell for beans. I'm a product of the spell check generation.

Spell check would have given your sentence a thumbs-up anyways haha.

I think this is why I thought it was funny:

Olde English


Watch part 4.

So we came from a common ancestor? So does this mean that the mutations that occur arent uniform and are dictated solely by area? Also doesnt this mean that the mutations are random since according to this theory, from a common species came a variety of new species.

Also another thing i wonder about is that we have species that adapt while in the area. But this isnt evolution. So why does it become necessary for a species who has already adapted to an area to evolve into something else that may or may not even survive? Sounds like it wouldnt make sense for this to occur.

you are confusing mutations with the natural selection pressure that acts on them. gotta think of those as separate things.

- mutations are random genetic alterations. nothing more.

- natural selecion is environmental pressure "selecting" (by survival and breeding of the fittest) favorable mutations from the random pool.



it doesn't have to be common. in fact a rarer species is much more likely than a common one to have parts of its populated become reproductively isolated and diverge into separate branches.



yes it is. small adaptations add up to evolution over long time periods (or short drastic ones if you subscribe to punctuated equilibrium).



it normally doesn't. generally speaking species don't survive because their environment changes faster than they evolve to adapt, not because they evolve unfavorably to a stable environment.

survival of the fittest isnt mutation though. The example most often used is I believe butterflies that changed colors to blend in to surroundings. While this adaptation is wonderful, it is still a butterfly. So even if this is passed down its still a butterfly

I understanding the breeding part can produce "superior" species, but even breeding doesnt change a species.



explain this some more...A am not sure where you are tryin to go with this one.



i disagree. We adapt all the time, every day we adapt to something else, but all these adaptions dont lead to us evolving in any form. We just adapt but our DNA doesnt change. There is no reason for a mutation to occur b/c of a simple adaptation. Something drastic would have to take place