Is change in biology--any change--variable in timing or quick and constant??

[Dan From Smithville]

I have heard claims that all change in biology is sudden, but I do not know fully what is meant by that. There are events in biological systems that happen rapidly. Biochemical reactions, nerve impulses, conception, receptor binding all could be classified as sudden to a degree. Nerve impulses are still much slower than electricity travelling along a wire though.

But there are numerous examples of slower processes in biology. Starvation does not happen suddenly, though quickly in some cases. Depending on the species and the locations, migration could take a little or a lot of time. Plenty of species migrate over great distances within the frame of a season or a year. Much slower than nerve impulses.

Change in species over time is not sudden, though we do have evidence that it varies and in some instances, the evidence supports it can be very rapid geologically followed by extensive periods of stasis (little significant change).

I can think of many examples of biological events that occur at different rates from sudden to slow.

I think you would all agree that sudden needs to be defined. That is imprecise at best to claim sudden as the rate of change without even knowing what that means.

I am not arguing that some changes in living things are not relatively quick, but how can all biological change be sudden?

I propose that sudden be viewed as relative to the conditions and the time scale under discussion. Sudden in reference to evolution, for instance, is commonly on a geological time scale or over 100's, 1000's, tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. That any claim of sudden change be explained in that relation. Caution would be against making sudden, suddenly cover all time frames rendering its application useless as a descriptor of the time of change.

If anyone has evidence or different ideas about change in living things and the rate, I would be interested in seeing that explained.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just posting so that I am subscribed. Once again waiting for answers from elsewhere.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well calloused hands are pretty quick.

 

[Nimos]

I am not arguing that some changes in living things are not relatively quick, but how can all biological change be sudden?

Not a 100% sure I know what you mean.

Mutations could be what you are referring to?

But also are you talking biologically/evolution "sudden change", like people could refer to the Cambrian explosion and imagine that this happened extremely fast over a few hundred years, because they have heard some scientists use the word "explosion" etc, but not really taking into account that they might refer to a rapid explosion in evolutionary terms, like the "explosion" took around 13-25 million years, based on a quick search on google. So in evolutionary terms it might be fast, but we are still talking millions of years.

 

[wellwisher]

I have heard claims that all change in biology is sudden, but I do not know fully what is meant by that. There are events in biological systems that happen rapidly. Biochemical reactions, nerve impulses, conception, receptor binding all could be classified as sudden to a degree. Nerve impulses are still much slower than electricity travelling along a wire though.

But there are numerous examples of slower processes in biology. Starvation does not happen suddenly, though quickly in some cases. Depending on the species and the locations, migration could take a little or a lot of time. Plenty of species migrate over great distances within the frame of a season or a year. Much slower than nerve impulses.

Change in species over time is not sudden, though we do have evidence that it varies and in some instances, the evidence supports it can be very rapid geologically followed by extensive periods of stasis (little significant change).

I can think of many examples of biological events that occur at different rates from sudden to slow.

I think you would all agree that sudden needs to be defined. That is imprecise at best to claim sudden as the rate of change without even knowing what that means.

I am not arguing that some changes in living things are not relatively quick, but how can all biological change be sudden?

I propose that sudden be viewed as relative to the conditions and the time scale under discussion. Sudden in reference to evolution, for instance, is commonly on a geological time scale or over 100's, 1000's, tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. That any claim of sudden change be explained in that relation. Caution would be against making sudden, suddenly cover all time frames rendering its application useless as a descriptor of the time of change.

If anyone has evidence or different ideas about change in living things and the rate, I would be interested in seeing that explained.

The problem with answering this question is modern biology is too dependent on statistical math models which are also used by gambling casinos. It assumes mutations, which randomly appear, will be become part of the future through natural selection.

The problem is, a random change approach will do more harm than good. It will add far more negatives than positives over time, and would kill off life instead of evolve it.

As an example, have a layman rearrange the base pairs on the human genome; DNA, that is generated by a computer. Since the layman knows very little about which genes are which, and which genes do what, their colorful rearrangement of pieces will act like a source of randomness.

Next, use the computer to simulate the new DNA to see what will happen. This random approach will mess up the DNA and cause problems all over the lifeforms. The odds of any positive evolutionary change coming from this is very small. Most of the changes will causes a degrading path leading toward extinction. The casino math approach to life and evolution has to be the biggest science blunder of all time. It was disprove in the 1950's but the warnings were ignored.

I can accept the natural selection premise of evolution, but the random change approach makes no sense at all, since purely random will do more harm than good. Take your automobile apart and randomly swap its parts or add different parts everywhere, such as from other model cars. Then try to start it and drive it. You may get one set of brakes right.

A different approach to this auto scenario is to research each component that you intent to change and replace it with a better part, such as from a performance car store. You will also need to make sure the bolts align, so the new part can fit. If it does not fit, even better parts, will still be useless. Life needs a mechanism that allows choices of better parts that fit into a complex integration of existing components. This loads the dice, so the car gets better each time, we have major changes.

This mechanism is reflected on the DNA. There are certain genes that rarely change. They are so loaded random does not really apply; off limits to random activity. There are other areas of the DNA that are more variable. These dice are much less loaded, but still have some load. The current theory is too weak to explain the why's for these differences, that seems to lead all of life to upgrade, and not downgrade.

The better explanation is needed for not only for evolution, but also for the observation of thriving and healthy life, everywhere. This approach is connected to the concept of entropy.

Any given state of matter defines a fixed amount of entropy. This is an engineering principle. This can be measured in the lab and is not an abstraction. The second law states that the entropy of the universe also has to increase over time. This is why we cannot have perpetual motion.

Life is based on a wide range of states of matter, from organelles, to cells, to organs, with each state having a fixed amount of entropy, with this entropy increasing over time via the 2nd law. An evolutionary change, means there is a natural push; 2nd law, for lower states to move into states of higher entropy; new state.

We also live in a quantum universe, where only distinct states are possible, with gaps between these distinct states. As cellular entropy increases, there will be gaps between the next entropic states, before we see any quantum jump into the next quantum states. This is observed as missing links. We will not see anything happening in the gaps, until the gap is transversed. The gap is more of a retrofitting period. When a new quantum state finally appears, it is then subject to natural selection.

In terms of entropic states, water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has a measured entropy value of 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is measured the same in all labs. The entire state of all these 6.02 x1023, water molecules, all interacting, adds to this constant amount of entropy. This is very profound.

Science will model a mole of water; 6.02 x 1023 molecules of water, as all interacting in various random ways; very complex. Although we use randomness to model all the water molecules, the sum of all that assumed randomness always adds to a constant; 188.8 Joules/(mole K). What appears to be random, based on theory, actually has an order that always has to add to a constant. Determinism; constant entropy, leads all the apparent randomness. The randomness is deterministic.

In terms of states of matter, such as a cell, what appears to be random changes on the DNA, is actually balancing out other changes in the cell, often due to changes in environmental input, so the entropy value of the entire cellular state can stay constant, increase in the gap, even increase to the next quantum state. This makes sense, since change needs to be connected to balancing and optimizing need; choosing the correct high performance brakes that fit the car based on the new role the car is expected to play.

In the Galapagos Island, where Darwin wrote his Origin of Species, change was very slow. Life stayed the same over a long period of time. This tells us that environmental potential play a role in evolution. If the environment is constant, change will be slow. There is little new push for change. Life change does not just randomly happen, but waits for the potential of need. The entropic state is the whole life form, and not just the DNA. The protein grid of the cell can increase entropy with little impact on the DNA.

The Cambium explosion was the opposite where the diversity of life changed quickly. This appears to have been connected to rapid changes in the external environment potentials. This added lot of entropy to life; 2nd law, which then pushes the states of life, into higher quantum states, again and again.

 

[Nimos]

The problem is, a random change approach will do more harm than good. It will add far more negatives than positives over time, and would kill off life instead of evolve it.

I think you got this mutation thing slightly wrong.

To kill off a species due to a mutation I think is near absolute 0% chance. When mutation occurs it doesn't happen in the whole species as if someone or something injected all of them with something, like suddenly all rabbits grew wings. It might be a mutation within an individual, which in certain cases could give it an advantage over the others and be able to pass on its genes. You are correct that most mutations probably result in a disadvantage for that individual that would make it die out as a result.

But if the mutation is for the benefit for the individuals, then there is less chance that they would die out.

I can accept the natural selection premise of evolution, but the random change approach makes no sense at all, since purely random will do more harm than good. Take your automobile apart and randomly swap its parts or add different parts everywhere, such as from other model cars. Then try to start it and drive it. You may get one set of brakes right.

But that is not how evolution works either. If you should use that analogy, you could say that mutations are that certain parts might end up wrong places and turn out to make for a better model or it might not. But primarily evolution is all but random. Individuals adapt to things over time, but occasionally something might go wrong and we have a mutation.

But the normal way is that we might for example have a rabbit, which have slightly longer ears than average and it might make it able to notice predators at a greater range and therefore giving it an advantage over the others, over 1000s of years, rabbits with longer ears might have a general higher chance of surviving than those with short ears and then the average ear length of rabbits would increase as a result of being better adapted or more fit to survive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not a 100% sure I know what you mean.

Mutations could be what you are referring to?

But also are you talking biologically/evolution "sudden change", like people could refer to the Cambrian explosion and imagine that this happened extremely fast over a few hundred years, because they have heard some scientists use the word "explosion" etc, but not really taking into account that they might refer to a rapid explosion in evolutionary terms, like the "explosion" took around 13-25 million years, based on a quick search on google. So in evolutionary terms it might be fast, but we are still talking millions of years.

It wasn't the most well-formed post I must admit. But the claim that all change in life is sudden has been made numerous times without acknowledgement of reason or evidence to back it up and I was curious what others might have to discuss regarding biological change. Change relates to many aspects of living things.

Mutations are one form of change and are included in this as well as evolution. Mutations, as I understand them, occur at a much faster rate than the change defined as evolution.

I think you do get what I so poorly formed in my OP. Description of the rate of change can be and is described in relative terms as well as more concrete clocks. The Cambrian explosion was rather quick in geological terms, but when the duration is quantified, it still occurred over tens of millions of years.

One point that I hoped would get across is that claims require some sort of argument, the presentation of supporting evidence and good reasoning to demonstrate how the conclusion was determined so that others can determine whether to accept or reject the claims. That is a standard convention or those claims can simply be dismissed. Additionally, it is useful and accepted practice to define terms where applicable and upon request. This is not always done. While there are limitations to communication on this forum, they are not so restrictive to prevent the demands of sound argument. They also do not require that the audience be swamped with so much information that it cannot be easily dissected and examined.

I suppose that not only is this thread expressing my interest in a particular aspect of biology, but is also a critique of communication forms I have seen attempted here and elsewhere.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well calloused hands are pretty quick.

Callous formation on those hands is slower than the speed of those hands at a particular task.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with answering this question is modern biology is too dependent on statistical math models which are also used by gambling casinos. It assumes mutations, which randomly appear, will be become part of the future through natural selection.

The problem is, a random change approach will do more harm than good. It will add far more negatives than positives over time, and would kill off life instead of evolve it.

Sorry, but you just mentioned how negative mutations are eliminated. Natural selection selects against them. They are not passed on. They do not become part of the genome.

As an example, have a layman rearrange the base pairs on the human genome; DNA, that is generated by a computer. Since the layman knows very little about which genes are which, and which genes do what, their colorful rearrangement of pieces will act like a source of randomness.

Next, use the computer to simulate the new DNA to see what will happen. This random approach will mess up the DNA and cause problems all over the lifeforms. The odds of any positive evolutionary change coming from this is very small. Most of the changes will causes a degrading path leading toward extinction. The casino math approach to life and evolution has to be the biggest science blunder of all time. It was disprove in the 1950's but the warnings were ignored.

Mutations do not act like that, but so what. Mutations only affect one individual initially. If they are harmful they are far less likely to be passed on. The organism is less likely to breed.

I can accept the natural selection premise of evolution, but the random change approach makes no sense at all, since purely random will do more harm than good. Take your automobile apart and randomly swap its parts or add different parts everywhere, such as from other model cars. Then try to start it and drive it. You may get one set of brakes right.

Again a very very poor analogy. Instead take your car and alter one part of it slightly. Let's say the brakes are made thinner. Your car is apt to have its brakes overheat and your poor car will crash and not to get to mate with other cars and have baby cars.

But let's say that you improve your cars brakes. It is more likely to survive until adulthood and get to mate with other cars passing on its better stronger brakes.

A different approach to this auto scenario is to research each component that you intent to change and replace it with a better part, such as from a performance car store. You will also need to make sure the bolts align, so the new part can fit. If it does not fit, even better parts, will still be useless. Life needs a mechanism that allows choices of better parts that fit into a complex integration of existing components. This loads the dice, so the car gets better each time, we have major changes.

This mechanism is reflected on the DNA. There are certain genes that rarely change. They are so loaded random does not really apply; off limits to random activity. There are other areas of the DNA that are more variable. These dice are much less loaded, but still have some load. The current theory is too weak to explain the why's for these differences, that seems to lead all of life to upgrade, and not downgrade.

Okay, there are well preserved genes because a negative mutation in those genes is often fatal. That is instant selection.

The better explanation is needed for not only for evolution, but also for the observation of thriving and healthy life, everywhere. This approach is connected to the concept of entropy.

Any given state of matter defines a fixed amount of entropy. This is an engineering principle. This can be measured in the lab and is not an abstraction. The second law states that the entropy of the universe also has to increase over time. This is why we cannot have perpetual motion.

Life is based on a wide range of states of matter, from organelles, to cells, to organs, with each state having a fixed amount of entropy, with this entropy increasing over time via the 2nd law. An evolutionary change, means there is a natural push; 2nd law, for lower states to move into states of higher entropy; new state.

We also live in a quantum universe, where only distinct states are possible, with gaps between these distinct states. As cellular entropy increases, there will be gaps between the next entropic states, before we see any quantum jump into the next quantum states. This is observed as missing links. We will not see anything happening in the gaps, until the gap is transversed. The gap is more of a retrofitting period. When a new quantum state finally appears, it is then subject to natural selection.

In terms of entropic states, water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has a measured entropy value of 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is measured the same in all labs. The entire state of all these 6.02 x1023, water molecules, all interacting, adds to this constant amount of entropy. This is very profound.

Science will model a mole of water; 6.02 x 1023 molecules of water, as all interacting in various random ways; very complex. Although we use randomness to model all the water molecules, the sum of all that assumed randomness always adds to a constant; 188.8 Joules/(mole K). What appears to be random, based on theory, actually has an order that always has to add to a constant. Determinism; constant entropy, leads all the apparent randomness. The randomness is deterministic.

In terms of states of matter, such as a cell, what appears to be random changes on the DNA, is actually balancing out other changes in the cell, often due to changes in environmental input, so the entropy value of the entire cellular state can stay constant, increase in the gap, even increase to the next quantum state. This makes sense, since change needs to be connected to balancing and optimizing need; choosing the correct high performance brakes that fit the car based on the new role the car is expected to play.

In the Galapagos Island, where Darwin wrote his Origin of Species, change was very slow. Life stayed the same over a long period of time. This tells us that environmental potential play a role in evolution. If the environment is constant, change will be slow. There is little new push for change. Life change does not just randomly happen, but waits for the potential of need. The entropic state is the whole life form, and not just the DNA. The protein grid of the cell can increase entropy with little impact on the DNA.

The Cambium explosion was the opposite where the diversity of life changed quickly. This appears to have been connected to rapid changes in the external environment potentials. This added lot of entropy to life; 2nd law, which then pushes the states of life, into higher quantum states, again and again.

Okay too much nonsense to deal with in one post. I will ignore the rest.

Here is your problem. You are focusing on the individual rather than on the population. Variation occurs naturally and constantly. For example you have on the order of 100 mutations from the DNA of your parents. Do you think that those changes are harming you? In evolution it does not matter if an individual gets harmful mutations and dies. When it dies those mutations are gone. What matters is that there will be a small percentage of beneficial mutations. Those beneficial mutations are passed on and accumulate. The negative ones go away because critters (highly technical term) with them tend to die before they can pass them on. Natural selection states the obvious. Those that have the optimum genome for an environment are more likely to pass on their genes. Critters that have a less than optimal genome are more likely not to breed and their genes will go away.

 

[Nimos]

I think you do get what I so poorly formed in my OP. Description of the rate of change can be and is described in relative terms as well as more concrete clocks. The Cambrian explosion was rather quick in geological terms, but when the duration is quantified, it still occurred over tens of millions of years.

Besides mutations are there some specific thing you were thinking of, that you could put forward as an example of where these rapid changes occurs? Just because it might be easier to answer compared to this "..I have heard claims that all change in biology is sudden" Is it some specific animal or plant where you heard they spoke about it or period like the Cambrian one?

Not that im an expert on evolution by any means, so might not be able to answer regardless

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Besides mutations are there some specific thing you were thinking of, that you could put forward as an example of where these rapid changes occurs? Just because it might be easier to answer compared to this "..I have heard claims that all change in biology is sudden" Is it some specific animal or plant where you heard they spoke about it or period like the Cambrian one?

Not that im an expert on evolution by any means, so might not be able to answer regardless

Aside from the blanket claim that all change in living things is sudden, the next claim often repeated is that speciation is sudden. No specific example is offered nor has a definition of sudden been offered. It is just that it prompted me to launch a discussion of the speed of change in living things.

Speciation might be sudden in comparison to some other process or phenomenon of living things, but in general, there is no evidence that speciation is sudden. Changes in the allele frequency happen over time. It takes time for a new beneficial allele to enter the population and more time to fix if it is. And the presence of a new allele does not signify speciation. So, speciation would not be sudden at all and this is backed up by the evidence.

From what I know and have studied, the speed of biological change is variable and dependent on the system being observed and the factors that confound, increase or synergize the speed of various change.

The steps of evolution would be more rapid than the entire process of speciation. Micro-evolutionary change would occur at a greater rate than macro-evolutionary change in general. Where there is no significant environmental selection, a population would remain in stasis during that period of reduced selection. The overall change in evolution occurring during stasis would then be at the micro-level that would not appear easily or at all in the fossil record.

From all the evidence available, there is no basis to claim that all change in living things is sudden.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem with answering this question is modern biology is too dependent on statistical math models which are also used by gambling casinos. It assumes mutations, which randomly appear, will be become part of the future through natural selection.

The problem is, a random change approach will do more harm than good. It will add far more negatives than positives over time, and would kill off life instead of evolve it.

As an example, have a layman rearrange the base pairs on the human genome; DNA, that is generated by a computer. Since the layman knows very little about which genes are which, and which genes do what, their colorful rearrangement of pieces will act like a source of randomness.

Next, use the computer to simulate the new DNA to see what will happen. This random approach will mess up the DNA and cause problems all over the lifeforms. The odds of any positive evolutionary change coming from this is very small. Most of the changes will causes a degrading path leading toward extinction. The casino math approach to life and evolution has to be the biggest science blunder of all time. It was disprove in the 1950's but the warnings were ignored.

I can accept the natural selection premise of evolution, but the random change approach makes no sense at all, since purely random will do more harm than good. Take your automobile apart and randomly swap its parts or add different parts everywhere, such as from other model cars. Then try to start it and drive it. You may get one set of brakes right.

A different approach to this auto scenario is to research each component that you intent to change and replace it with a better part, such as from a performance car store. You will also need to make sure the bolts align, so the new part can fit. If it does not fit, even better parts, will still be useless. Life needs a mechanism that allows choices of better parts that fit into a complex integration of existing components. This loads the dice, so the car gets better each time, we have major changes.

This mechanism is reflected on the DNA. There are certain genes that rarely change. They are so loaded random does not really apply; off limits to random activity. There are other areas of the DNA that are more variable. These dice are much less loaded, but still have some load. The current theory is too weak to explain the why's for these differences, that seems to lead all of life to upgrade, and not downgrade.

The better explanation is needed for not only for evolution, but also for the observation of thriving and healthy life, everywhere. This approach is connected to the concept of entropy.

Any given state of matter defines a fixed amount of entropy. This is an engineering principle. This can be measured in the lab and is not an abstraction. The second law states that the entropy of the universe also has to increase over time. This is why we cannot have perpetual motion.

Life is based on a wide range of states of matter, from organelles, to cells, to organs, with each state having a fixed amount of entropy, with this entropy increasing over time via the 2nd law. An evolutionary change, means there is a natural push; 2nd law, for lower states to move into states of higher entropy; new state.

We also live in a quantum universe, where only distinct states are possible, with gaps between these distinct states. As cellular entropy increases, there will be gaps between the next entropic states, before we see any quantum jump into the next quantum states. This is observed as missing links. We will not see anything happening in the gaps, until the gap is transversed. The gap is more of a retrofitting period. When a new quantum state finally appears, it is then subject to natural selection.

In terms of entropic states, water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has a measured entropy value of 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is measured the same in all labs. The entire state of all these 6.02 x1023, water molecules, all interacting, adds to this constant amount of entropy. This is very profound.

Science will model a mole of water; 6.02 x 1023 molecules of water, as all interacting in various random ways; very complex. Although we use randomness to model all the water molecules, the sum of all that assumed randomness always adds to a constant; 188.8 Joules/(mole K). What appears to be random, based on theory, actually has an order that always has to add to a constant. Determinism; constant entropy, leads all the apparent randomness. The randomness is deterministic.

In terms of states of matter, such as a cell, what appears to be random changes on the DNA, is actually balancing out other changes in the cell, often due to changes in environmental input, so the entropy value of the entire cellular state can stay constant, increase in the gap, even increase to the next quantum state. This makes sense, since change needs to be connected to balancing and optimizing need; choosing the correct high performance brakes that fit the car based on the new role the car is expected to play.

In the Galapagos Island, where Darwin wrote his Origin of Species, change was very slow. Life stayed the same over a long period of time. This tells us that environmental potential play a role in evolution. If the environment is constant, change will be slow. There is little new push for change. Life change does not just randomly happen, but waits for the potential of need. The entropic state is the whole life form, and not just the DNA. The protein grid of the cell can increase entropy with little impact on the DNA.

The Cambium explosion was the opposite where the diversity of life changed quickly. This appears to have been connected to rapid changes in the external environment potentials. This added lot of entropy to life; 2nd law, which then pushes the states of life, into higher quantum states, again and again.

I don't see how statistical analysis is a problem and how it relates to being able to recognize a new species were it to be observed to evolve even if statistical analysis was a problem.

Mutations are random in the sense that they do not occur in anticipation of a perceived benefit. The process of selection is non-random. Mutation would be a much more rapid process than selection and selection doesn't mean that all levels of fitness below some arbitrary or calculated optimum is instantly eliminated.

It looks like you have moved well out of the area for me to see connections with some of what you are discussing. But we do see less change or less large change in populations in stable environments. Where large numbers of unoccupied niches exist, change can be rapid as adaptive radiation drives the occupancy of these niches and creates further niches as a result. A new species evolving to rapidly fill an new, unoccupied niche is itself a potential environment for occupation by pathogenic or symbiotic microorganisms.

 

[Nimos]

Aside from the blanket claim that all change in living things is sudden, the next claim often repeated is that speciation is sudden. No specific example is offered nor has a definition of sudden been offered. It is just that it prompted me to launch a discussion of the speed of change in living things.

Speciation might be sudden in comparison to some other process or phenomenon of living things, but in general, there is no evidence that speciation is sudden. Changes in the allele frequency happen over time. It takes time for a new beneficial allele to enter the population and more time to fix if it is. And the presence of a new allele does not signify speciation. So, speciation would not be sudden at all and this is backed up by the evidence.

From what I know and have studied, the speed of biological change is variable and dependent on the system being observed and the factors that confound, increase or synergize the speed of various change.

The steps of evolution would be more rapid than the entire process of speciation. Micro-evolutionary change would occur at a greater rate than macro-evolutionary change in general. Where there is no significant environmental selection, a population would remain in stasis during that period of reduced selection. The overall change in evolution occurring during stasis would then be at the micro-level that would not appear easily or at all in the fossil record.

From all the evidence available, there is no basis to claim that all change in living things is sudden.

Again, haven't heard the argument made that all evolution is sudden or fast, but I tend to agree with you that it doesn't seem like a sound argument.

For instance the one above is said to have split off from the other one below around 19-48 million years ago, which is a pretty long time I would say.

Both are mammals that lay eggs, but are not able to mate with each other.

But again, what is considered sudden in evolution, I actually don't know

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, haven't heard the argument made that all evolution is sudden or fast, but I tend to agree with you that it doesn't seem like a sound argument.

View attachment 62815

For instance the one above is said to have split off from the other one below around 19-48 million years ago, which is a pretty long time I would say.

View attachment 62816

Both are mammals that lay eggs, but are not able to mate with each other.

But again, what is considered sudden in evolution, I actually don't know

I think understanding that a lot of change in living things and biological systems is variable, dependent on the system in discussion and that very long times or very short times are difficult for people to conceive are important issues.

The divergence of monotreme species happened a long time ago, but I do not know how long that divergence took to fix resulting in related, but recognizably different species. There are two different timings in that change. The time frame of when it happened and the duration that took place for it to happen.

Whereas, the evidence for cichlid fish radiation in Lake Victoria in Africa (it must be my favorite example) is considered to have occurred in under 15,000 years resulting in as many as 700 different endemic species from a staring population of one or a few species. The timing is based on lake bottom core evidence that indicates that the lake was a stream running though a grassland 15,000 years ago and prior. The present lake formed since that time.

This is one of the most rapid examples of speciation so far recorded and I would bet probably faster than monotreme divergence. But both are still examples of evolution and examples that timing of events can be and often is variable.

 

[Yazata]

I have heard claims that all change in biology is sudden, but I do not know fully what is meant by that.

Well, changes in the fossil record often seem to be sudden. The idea seems to be that species seem to be fairly stable and constant over time, with speciation events rather quick and sudden.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

There are events in biological systems that happen rapidly. Biochemical reactions, nerve impulses, conception, receptor binding all could be classified as sudden to a degree. Nerve impulses are still much slower than electricity travelling along a wire though.

But there are numerous examples of slower processes in biology. Starvation does not happen suddenly, though quickly in some cases. Depending on the species and the locations, migration could take a little or a lot of time. Plenty of species migrate over great distances within the frame of a season or a year. Much slower than nerve impulses.

Yes. It isn't true that everything in biology is sudden or gradual. There are examples of both.

Change in species over time is not sudden

I think that it can be. Higher taxa as well might sometimes appear fairly suddenly, not just species (whatever species are).

That might be less the case now than it was back in Ediacaran times prior to the "Cambrian-explosion", when all proto-animals were soft bodied and far simpler. If you take an organism with a body like a simple sack (with digestive cells on the inside) and turn it inside out (so that the digestive cells are on the outside), that might conceivably have some advantage in some environments. But if you turn a higher animal inside out, it would be the worst kind of birth-defect and would be spontaneously aborted.

What drives that kind of stuff are mutations in genes controlling fetal development. Mutations can happen suddenly. But as the whole process of fetal development becomes more complex, a dramatic change early in the process would screw up later parts of the process and would experience increasingly strong selective pressure against.

So I'm inclined to think that speciation events are associated with mutations in genes influencing fetal development. And as those processes of fetal development have grown more complex, the changes that drive taxonomic change have migrated to later and later parts of the process. So today we don't see the wholesale appearance of new body-plans like in the Cambrian-explosion, but subtle changes in something like the shape of a bird's beak or the coloration pattern on a butterfly's wing.

 

[Revoltingest]

It will add far more negatives than positives over time, and would kill off life instead of evolve it.

This assumes there's no fitness function
to select against deleterious mutations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, changes in the fossil record often seem to be sudden. The idea seems to be that species seem to be fairly stable and constant over time, with speciation events rather quick and sudden.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia


Yes. It isn't true that everything in biology is sudden or gradual. There are examples of both.



I think that it can be. Higher taxa as well might sometimes appear fairly suddenly, not just species (whatever species are).

That might be less the case now than it was back in Ediacaran times prior to the "Cambrian-explosion", when all proto-animals were soft bodied and far simpler. If you take an organism with a body like a simple sack (with digestive cells on the inside) and turn it inside out (so that the digestive cells are on the outside), that might conceivably have some advantage in some environments. But if you turn a higher animal inside out, it would be the worst kind of birth-defect and would be spontaneously aborted.

What drives that kind of stuff are mutations in genes controlling fetal development. Mutations can happen suddenly. But as the whole process of fetal development becomes more complex, a dramatic change early in the process would screw up later parts of the process and would experience increasingly strong selective pressure against.

So I'm inclined to think that speciation events are associated with mutations in genes influencing fetal development. And as those processes of fetal development have grown more complex, the changes that drive taxonomic change have migrated to later and later parts of the process. So today we don't see the wholesale appearance of new body-plans like in the Cambrian-explosion, but subtle changes in something like the shape of a bird's beak or the coloration pattern on a butterfly's wing.

That is because geological time is not the same as biological time. There are cases of slow steady deposition where on can watch very small gradual changes occur. In chalk deposits one can watch the changes of coccolithophores. But watching little tine critters slowly evolve into little tiny critters is not very exciting. Preservation of land based life is extremely rare. When speaking of land based life fossilization is exceedingly rare. Let's take T-Rex as an example. Perhaps the best known fossil by name. They were alive for only about 2 million years. Yet it is estimated that about 2.5 billion of them existed. And do you know how many fossilized adults that we have? Only 32. And they were a well established large (large dinosaurs are much more likely to be preserved than small ones)

When it comes to small species they are much more likely to rot or get eaten before they rare preserved. It is also why it is very very rare catastrophes, such as a flash flood that tends to preserve land animals. Even in Darwin's time they knew how rare land based fossils were compared to marine based fossils. He did not expect to see the rich number of fossils that we now have.

And punctuated equilibria is still accepted, though we have many many more transitional forms than we did then. A large population tends to be genetically stable. Innovations often get absorbed by the sheer numbers of others that are living just fine. A major change will drive a sudden change in two ways. First there will be drastic selection. The individuals that cannot handle the new change as well will simply die off or not reproduce. That alone can make a "new species" appear. Second a massive die off means that for those that can survive and thrive in the new environment that there will be all sorts of niches open to them. Usually to small populations where changes are easily preserved. So punctuated equilibria is still very much a real thing. But there is quite a lot that does not seem to need it. Bird evolution appears to be more of the classic slow and steady change. What good is "half a wing"? There are more than just a few species that can answer that question for us.

Punctuated equilibrium was proposed about 50 years ago. Since then we have found countless new fossils. Many of the transitional species have been filled in.

 

[Tiberius]

I have heard claims that all change in biology is sudden, but I do not know fully what is meant by that. There are events in biological systems that happen rapidly. Biochemical reactions, nerve impulses, conception, receptor binding all could be classified as sudden to a degree. Nerve impulses are still much slower than electricity travelling along a wire though.

But there are numerous examples of slower processes in biology. Starvation does not happen suddenly, though quickly in some cases. Depending on the species and the locations, migration could take a little or a lot of time. Plenty of species migrate over great distances within the frame of a season or a year. Much slower than nerve impulses.

Change in species over time is not sudden, though we do have evidence that it varies and in some instances, the evidence supports it can be very rapid geologically followed by extensive periods of stasis (little significant change).

I can think of many examples of biological events that occur at different rates from sudden to slow.

I think you would all agree that sudden needs to be defined. That is imprecise at best to claim sudden as the rate of change without even knowing what that means.

I am not arguing that some changes in living things are not relatively quick, but how can all biological change be sudden?

I propose that sudden be viewed as relative to the conditions and the time scale under discussion. Sudden in reference to evolution, for instance, is commonly on a geological time scale or over 100's, 1000's, tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. That any claim of sudden change be explained in that relation. Caution would be against making sudden, suddenly cover all time frames rendering its application useless as a descriptor of the time of change.

If anyone has evidence or different ideas about change in living things and the rate, I would be interested in seeing that explained.

It's sudden when viewed through a geological timescale. It's not sudden when viewed on the timescale of a human lifetime.

But different genes can change at different rates, some are more predisposed to change faster than others. And generation length can have an affect as well. A species that reproduces every week will change through evolution faster than a species that reproduces only once a decade.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, changes in the fossil record often seem to be sudden. The idea seems to be that species seem to be fairly stable and constant over time, with speciation events rather quick and sudden.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia



Yes. It isn't true that everything in biology is sudden or gradual. There are examples of both.



I think that it can be. Higher taxa as well might sometimes appear fairly suddenly, not just species (whatever species are).

That might be less the case now than it was back in Ediacaran times prior to the "Cambrian-explosion", when all proto-animals were soft bodied and far simpler. If you take an organism with a body like a simple sack (with digestive cells on the inside) and turn it inside out (so that the digestive cells are on the outside), that might conceivably have some advantage in some environments. But if you turn a higher animal inside out, it would be the worst kind of birth-defect and would be spontaneously aborted.

What drives that kind of stuff are mutations in genes controlling fetal development. Mutations can happen suddenly. But as the whole process of fetal development becomes more complex, a dramatic change early in the process would screw up later parts of the process and would experience increasingly strong selective pressure against.

So I'm inclined to think that speciation events are associated with mutations in genes influencing fetal development. And as those processes of fetal development have grown more complex, the changes that drive taxonomic change have migrated to later and later parts of the process. So today we don't see the wholesale appearance of new body-plans like in the Cambrian-explosion, but subtle changes in something like the shape of a bird's beak or the coloration pattern on a butterfly's wing.

I agree. There are examples of change that occur at varying rates in living systems. And it matters the scale that you are examining as well. Change at the individual level is different than change at the population level or across geological time.

The claim that I have seen repeated numerous times is that all change in living things at all levels is sudden. No attempt has been made to define sudden or to support the claim with examples. I just wanted to examine it more closely with an eye to establishing some examples of different changes in living things along with a reasonable timeframe for which those changes occur.

Mutations are something that are known to occur within a generation of living things at the population level. At the level of the individual organisms, the time they take to occur is much more rapid. On the geological timescale mutation and speciation can be seen as very rapid in some instances and speciation much slower in other instances.

In a human timescale, we see subtle changes to bird beaks and butterfly wings that mark change we can see in relatively short periods of time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's sudden when viewed through a geological timescale. It's not sudden when viewed on the timescale of a human lifetime.

But different genes can change at different rates, some are more predisposed to change faster than others. And generation length can have an affect as well. A species that reproduces every week will change through evolution faster than a species that reproduces only once a decade.

I think that it is not only the type of biological phenomenon under observation, but just as you indicate, the scale in which the observations are being made as well.

The bottom line is that no matter how many times someone claims it, all change in all living things is not always sudden. Sudden being commonly understood to be rather rapid depending on the scale on which the claim is made. That distinction of timescale was not and has not been made regarding the claim I have seen. It was made as if all change happens at the same, nearly instantaneous rate regardless of the change or the scale of observation.