Evolution: ask your questions here

Autodidact · Jan 14, 2011

Ever wonder what the Theory of Evolution really says? What evidence it's based on? How science knows it's correct? What its implications are? Ask your questions here, and the knowledgeable members will try to answer them.

Watchmen · Jan 14, 2011

Autodidact said:
Ever wonder what the Theory of Evolution really says? What evidence it's based on? How science knows it's correct? What its implications are? Ask your questions here, and the knowledgeable members will try to answer them.

What are the differences, if any, between Darwinism, natural selection, and modern theories on evolution?

Autodidact · Jan 14, 2011

I see "Darwinism" as a bit of a vague term, not really clear. I guess all of Biology now is Darwinist, kind of like all of physics is Einsteinian...but maybe you are referring to Darwin's original theory, as opposed to how much it has changed in the present day?

"Natural selection is one important piece of the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) Basically there are two steps in change of populations over time: random variation in offspring, then natural selection.

An analogy might be if we were going to try to design an airplane wing. (Engineers actually did this.) They program the computer to choose whatever design is most aerodynamic. The computer throws some numbers in and throws out all kinds of crappy designs, square ones, ones with doo-hickeys, etc. Then the algorithm SELECTS the most aerodynamic, and throws it back into the process. The computer spins around again and spits out another bunch of designs from there, then it selects the most aerodynamic. After a few rounds of this process, they got a wing better than they could have designed. It has a random piece, and a selection piece. ToE says this is something like how organisms get "designed" over time, and explains why they look designed, without a designer specifying each individual species.

I'll leave your last question to PW or someone more educated for now, because the answer is A LOT. There's this whole period during which ToE and genetics were separated, and the relationship not understood. Then they came to together in the Modern Synthesis, which is important to the history of science.

Some other terms that come to mind that are important are punctuated equilibrium (aka punk eek), genetic drift and evolutionary development, or evo devo. If no one comes along with good explanations, I'll try to supply when I have more time.

outhouse · Jan 14, 2011

modern theories on evolution?

Are very simular to the past as the theory doesnt change.

It would be the same as asking how recent theorys of gravity have changed.

So much science uses evolution and without it there would be no biotech inustries at all. As far as anthropology goes pieces are being added and updated as we find them after anylization proccesses.

RedOne77 · Jan 14, 2011

Can anyone give me a really good, somewhat technical, overview of punk eek, how well it is received in the scientific community, and how important/wide-spread punk eek is according to the best evidence we have to date, and how it fits in with gradualism and the modern synthesis?

I think I understand the basics, but just reading stuff online it seems that there's not a lot of good, accurate information out there. Or there's disagreement within the scientific community on exactly what punk eek is all about and what exactly it means in terms of evolution in short time periods versus geological time periods. A lot of what I understand about it is me synthesizing what I read into a coherent model that makes sense with what I understand about evolution. So the understanding I have is something I've never explicitly read, and I want to make sure that I don't have it all wrong.

Feel free to post online material or links, so long as you know they are accurate. Thanks

Watchmen · Jan 14, 2011

Autodidact said:
I see "Darwinism" as a bit of a vague term, not really clear. I guess all of Biology now is Darwinist, kind of like all of physics is Einsteinian...but maybe you are referring to Darwin's original theory, as opposed to how much it has changed in the present day?

"Natural selection is one important piece of the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) Basically there are two steps in change of populations over time: random variation in offspring, then natural selection.

An analogy might be if we were going to try to design an airplane wing. (Engineers actually did this.) They program the computer to choose whatever design is most aerodynamic. The computer throws some numbers in and throws out all kinds of crappy designs, square ones, ones with doo-hickeys, etc. Then the algorithm SELECTS the most aerodynamic, and throws it back into the process. The computer spins around again and spits out another bunch of designs from there, then it selects the most aerodynamic. After a few rounds of this process, they got a wing better than they could have designed. It has a random piece, and a selection piece. ToE says this is something like how organisms get "designed" over time, and explains why they look designed, without a designer specifying each individual species.

I'll leave your last question to PW or someone more educated for now, because the answer is A LOT. There's this whole period during which ToE and genetics were separated, and the relationship not understood. Then they came to together in the Modern Synthesis, which is important to the history of science.

Some other terms that come to mind that are important are punctuated equilibrium (aka punk eek), genetic drift and evolutionary development, or evo devo. If no one comes along with good explanations, I'll try to supply when I have more time.

Thank you.

painted wolf · Jan 14, 2011

Watchmen said:
What are the differences, if any, between Darwinism, natural selection, and modern theories on evolution?

Darwinism is a very broad and problematic term... often it has very little to do with biology at all, but a smattering of ideas based more or less loosely on the concepts of Charles Darwin.
The exact meaning of the word depends on who is using and when in the historical context it is being used. Again, it has essentially no use in biology outside of a historical/philosophical discussion.
The most common modern usage is as a pejorative against evolution, meant to imply a quazi-religious adherence to works of Charles Darwin.

Natural selection is the over-arching mechanism behind evolution. It's actually a combination of things that are best summed up by two facts: 1) Not every offspring of a species will survive and 2) not every survivor will get to successfully reproduce.

The modern theory of evolution combines the key observations of Charles Darwin (but not all of his ideas) with modern knowledge of genetics, inheritance, systemics, paleontology and ecology.

wa:do

Autodidact · Jan 14, 2011

I'll take a stab at punk eek, and then pw can correct me.

It has to do with the rate of evolutionary change. There are 3 main possibilities:
(1) It does along at a pretty constant rate, always slow and gradual. No one thinks this, including Darwin.
(2) It varies, sometimes slow, sometimes medium, sometimes fast.
(3) It varies in a specific pattern. This is punk eek. The specific pattern is like this: same...same...same...CHANGE...same...same. Also, when a new species emerges, it does so by an existing species splitting into two, rather than one becoming another.

An important thing to understand is that in punk eek, when they say things like "sudden change," it means tens of thousands of years. Because the fossil record is compressed, this might look like an inch of rock.

As for the level of acceptance, I think the situation is that scientists are pretty sure it happens in some cases. What they don't know is how widespread or universal it is.

painted wolf · Jan 14, 2011

RedOne77 said:
Can anyone give me a really good, somewhat technical, overview of punk eek, how well it is received in the scientific community, and how important/wide-spread punk eek is according to the best evidence we have to date, and how it fits in with gradualism and the modern synthesis?

Don't ask for much do you?

I think I understand the basics, but just reading stuff online it seems that there's not a lot of good, accurate information out there. Or there's disagreement within the scientific community on exactly what punk eek is all about and what exactly it means in terms of evolution in short time periods versus geological time periods.

There is certainly a lot of disagreement.

A lot of what I understand about it is me synthesizing what I read into a coherent model that makes sense with what I understand about evolution. So the understanding I have is something I've never explicitly read, and I want to make sure that I don't have it all wrong.

Feel free to post online material or links, so long as you know they are accurate. Thanks

Here are some quick links that will hopefully help. If you have any specific questions I'd be happy to discuss them. I'm still banging out what I think of Punk Eec myself.

Prothero covers the subject pretty well in "Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters". Hopefully this google books link works for you. If not, it's totally worth getting from the library.
Evolution: what the fossils say and ... - Google Books

Here is the founding paper: http://www.nileseldredge.com/pdf_files/Punctuated_Equilibria_Gould_Eldredge_1977.pdf
Here is a paper supporting it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/90/22/10424.full.pdf

wa:do

Watchmen · Jan 14, 2011

One response said all of biology is Darwinism. Another said Darwinism has little to do with biology. One response suggested there's A LOT of differences between what once was and the modern theory. One said there's not much difference because the modern theory is similar to the past and doesn't change.

Question: What can you tell me about the latest fossil find demonstrating man may not have originated in Africa?

painted wolf · Jan 14, 2011

Watchmen said:
One response said all of biology is Darwinism. Another said Darwinism has little to do with biology.

Like I said... it depends on how you use the term "Darwinism"... it is a very problematic term.

Perhaps the wiki on it can explain better?
Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One response suggested there's A LOT of differences between what once was and the modern theory. One said there's not much difference because the modern theory is similar to the past and doesn't change.

the core of the theory didn't change (decent with modification/natural selection)... but the addition of genetics and the unification of all biological disciplines was a major breakthrough.

The modern theory of evolution is not "A LOT" different, it is more inclusive and defined thanks to genetics and so on. I would say that the modern synthesis is "a bit" different in some key ways from the theory as Darwin first proposed it.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that there was "A LOT" different...

Question: What can you tell me about the latest fossil find demonstrating man may not have originated in Africa?

I haven't heard of such a find... perhaps you can give me a source to look into?

wa:do

scitsofreaky · Jan 15, 2011

Watchmen said:
Question: What can you tell me about the latest fossil find demonstrating man may not have originated in Africa?

If you are referring to the fossil discussed in this thread, please read this article (which I linked to in that thread also).

painted wolf · Jan 15, 2011

scitsofreaky said:
If you are referring to the fossil discussed in this thread, please read this article (which I linked to in that thread also).

If it is, it's not evidence that modern humans didn't originate in Africa.... there are human (homo sapiens) species that are older in Africa.

At best (and it's highly doubtful) this shows modern humans being older than previously thought and leaving Africa earlier than previously thought. Not necessarily evolving outside of Africa.

Given that the teeth are not that diagnostic it's more likely that these are not modern humans, but much closer to the human/neanderthal split. We will know more when, and if, they get any DNA sequenced.

wa:do

David M · Jan 15, 2011

Autodidact said:
I'll take a stab at punk eek, and then pw can correct me.

(3) It varies in a specific pattern. This is punk eek. The specific pattern is like this: same...same...same...CHANGE...same...same. Also, when a new species emerges, it does so by an existing species splitting into two, rather than one becoming another.

I'd say it more slow...slow...slow...Fast...slow...slow...slow.

With slow periods being mainly minor changes that don't affect morphology very much and rarely lead to speciation while fast often causes speciation and can cause larger changes in morphology.

Its a much debated topic but the last I read on the subject the view was that about 60% of speciations were happening in "fast" periods with the rest in "slow" periods.

No proponent of PE says that there is absolutey no speciation via slow gradual change.

painted wolf · Jan 15, 2011

Actually I'd say punk eec is more "homogeneous population suppresses dramatic change...> genetic isolation means there is nothing to stop accumulation of unique traits...."

Punk eec really doesn't need mutations (or other genetic changes) to happen any faster than at any other time in evolution. Change still progresses at the same rate, but due to genetic isolation, genetic drift and other forces, the changes are potentially more dramatic in isolated populations.

wa:do

Watchmen · Jan 15, 2011

painted wolf said:
Like I said... it depends on how you use the term "Darwinism"... it is a very problematic term.

Perhaps the wiki on it can explain better?
Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the core of the theory didn't change (decent with modification/natural selection)... but the addition of genetics and the unification of all biological disciplines was a major breakthrough.

The modern theory of evolution is not "A LOT" different, it is more inclusive and defined thanks to genetics and so on. I would say that the modern synthesis is "a bit" different in some key ways from the theory as Darwin first proposed it.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that there was "A LOT" different...

I haven't heard of such a find... perhaps you can give me a source to look into?

wa:do

Thanks. (it looks like someone already posted what I was referring to).

bobhikes · Jan 15, 2011

Why does our intellect interfere with the evolutionary process but other species intellect does not.

Why do some species use cooperative evolution yet we do not we use artificial evolution(selective breeding) as in Dogs and such.

Why can't changes survive that aren't necessarily beneficial for the species for example genes for the color purple in eyes, feathers or such and even possible changes detrimental to the species as in Large breasted women.

Why is it not possible to have species developement by species intellect
Why is it not possible to have species developement by species emotional intellect.

Please be civil and honest in your responce. These are my honest questions.

Skwim · Jan 15, 2011

bobhikes said:
Why does our intellect interfere with the evolutionary process but other species intellect does not.

Where do you see this interference occurring?

Why do some species use cooperative evolution yet we do not we use artificial evolution(selective breeding) as in Dogs and such.

What is "cooperative evolution"? And species don't "use" evolution.

Why can't changes survive that aren't necessarily beneficial for the species for example genes for the color purple in eyes, feathers or such and even possible changes detrimental to the species as in Large breasted women

I believe they do, at least for awhile. Detrimental changes are eliminated much more quickly.

Why is it not possible to have species developement by species intellect

Perhaps it is.

Why is it not possible to have species developement by species emotional intellect.

I don't see emotional changes as conferring any evolutionary advantage.

bobhikes · Jan 15, 2011

Skwim said:
1Where do you see this interference occurring?

2What is "cooperative evolution"? And species don't "use" evolution.

3I believe they do, at least for awhile. Detrimental changes are eliminated much more quickly.

4Perhaps it is.

5I don't see emotional changes as conferring any evolutionary advantage.

1) Is a car part of evolution, the computer. Any gene's, anivirus's animals we shape is considered selective breeding not natural evolution.

2) Cooperative evolution is where two species such as ant and aphids develop together. The Manned Wolf and a certain plant in brazil is another example. Artificial evolution is Us and wolves becoming Dogs. For me they look very similar.

3) I see it as certain detrimental changes while harmful appeal to the species intellect or emotion and will survive until the species dies out.

4) Thank you. I would like to see more research done in this area.

5) See 3

RedOne77 · Jan 15, 2011

Autodidact said:
(2) It varies, sometimes slow, sometimes medium, sometimes fast.
(3) It varies in a specific pattern. This is punk eek. The specific pattern is like this: same...same...same...CHANGE...same...same. Also, when a new species emerges, it does so by an existing species splitting into two, rather than one becoming another.

From what I've gathered both models are correct. Punk eek is a specific type of peripatric speciation that explains the sudden (geologically, as you've said) appearance of morphologically distinct species as a small population propagates its phenotype into a larger geographical area giving the appearance of "sudden" change.

And then there are other modes of speciation that take a variety of length to complete.

An important thing to understand is that in punk eek, when they say things like "sudden change," it means tens of thousands of years. Because the fossil record is compressed, this might look like an inch of rock.

Just for clarification, I might have ran into some ID/creation propaganda talking about PE that may be contributing to my confusion, PE doesn't necessitate evolutionary change faster than normal for said population (obviously if we are talking about a population undergoing the founder effect the rate of change would be relatively fast) or that mutations produce big phenotypical or morphological changes?

As for the level of acceptance, I think the situation is that scientists are pretty sure it happens in some cases. What they don't know is how widespread or universal it is.

Thanks for the information.

P.S. PW, the google book works, I'll have to read the information in the links later today and make a response tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again.

Evolution: ask your questions here

Intentionally Blank

Well-Known Member

Intentionally Blank

Atheistically

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Grey Muzzle

Intentionally Blank

Grey Muzzle

Well-Known Member

Grey Muzzle

Active Member

Grey Muzzle

Well-Known Member

Grey Muzzle

Well-Known Member

Nondetermined

Veteran Member

Nondetermined

Active Member