The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins

by mavie 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • mavie
    mavie

    I'm about halfway through this book. I understand Dawkin's general thesis here, and I think it is sound. However, I still am having a hard time understanding a couple things.

    1.) How a species change can happen though gradual adaptation. My understanding of what constitutes a species revolves around the ability to procreate. Is there a point where offspring cannot procreate with previous generations?

    2.) Dawkins mentions that mutations happen on the order of one per thousands of generations. This implies that things with shorter life spans would adapt faster and vice versa. Has the Earth been around long enough for humans to adapt and mutate, one slow adaptation at a time?

    Maybe he answers these later in the book.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    I have just ordered on Amazon.com - I intend reading all his books. I will form an opinion later. I admit I still have a hard time myself grasping certain concepts. What I found easy to grasp in the God Delusion is his complexity argument. Since the universe is so complex, God, by definition, if he existed, must be much more complex.

    I can also see how undesirable traits will be gradually weeded out of the gene pool and advantages will be gradually passed on. But mutations which lead to half an eye etc I struggle with. I am told it is answered in Climbing Mount Improbable - my next read after the Blind Watchmaker

  • New Worldly Translation
    New Worldly Translation
    How a species change can happen though gradual adaptation. My understanding of what constitutes a species revolves around the ability to procreate. Is there a point where offspring cannot procreate with previous generations?

    Yes you're correct that species are generally made distinct in terms of procreation. How evolution has created species is by gradual change over long periods of time. In retrospect we think of changes as big jumps but evolution does this gradually so that every generation can procreate with the previous one and the subsequent one at least. Jump 1000 generations and the first animal in the evolutionary history will not be able to mate with the 1000th generation animal even though they have a genetic history but because each animal only differs slightly from the previous generation and the subsequent one it creates an evolutionary chain link.
    I think it was in one of Dawkins books he mentioned how this has happened in our world today. There are sea birds on one side of the atlantic (I think it was atlantic) who have over time journeyed across via various islands leaving behind breeding colonies every time to the other side of the atlantic. Over time they have become slightly disimilar from the other birds, the most disimilar being those on either side of the atlantic who can't mate with each other. Going along the chain of birds on their islands however reveals that each flock on neighbouring islands can mate with each other even though those far apart geopraphically can't.

    Dawkins mentions that mutations happen on the order of one per thousands of generations. This implies that things with shorter life spans would adapt faster and vice versa. Has the Earth been around long enough for humans to adapt and mutate, one slow adaptation at a time?

    Usually when dawkins is talking about generations he's talking about genes and not organisms. When calculating mutation for organisms you have to factor in the size of the genome, so humans have a massive genome susceptable to mutation. Mutation rates can differ from animal to animal due to environmental variables so I'd assume one per thousand is a mean figure to illustrate levels of mutation for all genes.

    I hope I've explained that correctly.

    Any biology grads can pick me up on what might be wrong.

  • Abandoned
    Abandoned

    I haven't read this book, but The God Delusion showed up from amazon today. I hope to read a chapter or so before bed.

  • Blueblades
    Blueblades

    I read the blind watchmaker and will have to read it again. I'm now reading The God Delusion.

    Blueblades

  • mavie
    mavie
    Usually when dawkins is talking about generations he's talking about genes and not organisms. When calculating mutation for organisms you have to factor in the size of the genome, so humans have a massive genome susceptable to mutation. Mutation rates can differ from animal to animal due to environmental variables so I'd assume one per thousand is a mean figure to illustrate levels of mutation for all genes.

    Maybe someone can help me with this. How can a gene mutate in an adult human, say a gene mutates to give you the beginnings of a third eye, how does that affect the person?

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere
    How can a gene mutate in an adult human, say a gene mutates to give you the beginnings of a third eye, how does that affect the person?

    Organisms that reproduce sexually do not experience genetic changes. All changes occur in offspring during reproduction.

    This is why we know the Egg came before the Chicken.

  • mavie
    mavie
    How can a gene mutate in an adult human, say a gene mutates to give you the beginnings of a third eye, how does that affect the person?

    Organisms that reproduce sexually do not experience genetic changes. All changes occur in offspring during reproduction.

    Ok then, so genetic changes/mutations can ONLY happen during reproduction? This seems to contradict what another poster said when he referred to Dawkin's use of a generation ususally referring to a gene.

    Basically, what I'm trying to get at is this; how often do chances for genetic mutation occur?

  • hamsterbait
    hamsterbait

    The chances for genetic mutation occurs when the sex cells are being made. DNA is not always copied 100% accurately.

    Most of the mutations occur on parts of the genes known as "junk DNA" and so produces no immediately obvious effect.

    Others affect hair color, skin complexion, size and shape of genitals, muscular size and strength, and other less measurable factors such as musical talent, spatial awareness and so on. In many cases a mutation does no direct harm to an organism, which then survives to pass the change on.

    The most obvious example of this is the cumulative effects of mutation on the hair and skin color of human descendants as they fanned out across the globe.

    A red-headed celt is unlikely to mate with another red-headed celt and produce a tiny west african bushman. However, each race is descended from common stock so the changes must have built up over time.

    At present, the various human types have not lived in isolation for long enough for cross fertility to become impossible. Now, with travel and intermarriage it is unlikely to happen on a planetary scale, but if ever we travel to the stars, it will be interesting if a human descendant on another planet in say 20 000 000 years will still be fertile with one from Mother Earth.

    Mutation of the sex cells has now been shown to happen in response to conditions experienced at time of their formation.

    In the case of females, this is at the stage in gestation where the supply of egg cells is being laid down in the ovaries of the fetus. So a famine, drought, period of plenty, a stressful pregnancy with its associated effects, will have an effect on the grandchild of the pregnant female.

    In the case of males, it is during the early stages of puberty, where sperm production begins, and at other stages of life in response to prevailing conditions. Again the effect will be on the grandchildren of his parents.

    This study was done very recently, but its potential is very exciting.

    Other mutations occur among bacteria, when they exchange DNA, which is then copied with variants, leading to other types of bacteria.

    Of course their is also mutation caused by radioctivity, and cosmic rays which are so negligible in the natural world as to be hardly worth considering.

    Damage to DNA in adults generally results in cancers - melanoma being the most obvious example, but this is not really mutation in Dawkins sense.

    HB

    A topic of debate is whether Neandertals and modern humans were cross fertile. Both are descended from a common ancestor. There is sufficient proof that the two groups co-existed for a long time. If at first they were able to intermarry, this would account for the very few examples of cultural cross-fertilization.

    One theory is that as cross-breeding became impossible the less able Neandertals were hunted to extinction as "unclean" or dangerous to the superstious people of the period. Or just an inferior to be wiped out.

  • gaiagirl
    gaiagirl

    Because of the manner in which DNA is contributed by both parents, distinct genetic changes happen every single generation, that is why we are not identical copies of either of our parents, but a composite of some features and qualities of both. We are genetically close enough to the previous still living generations to be able to procreate with them (ewwww!), but if there were someone living from, say 500,000 years ago, there might be enough genetic difference to make procreation impossible. To make the illustration another way, suppose a colony of humans were started on Mars, and left alone or forgotten for 500,000 years. With no way to interbreed with the population on Earth, and with a different set of environmental selective pressures acting upon them, their genetics would change in a different way from the parent stock on the home planet, so that by the time a half-million years had passed, they would probably not be close enough to "human" to be able to breed. This is one way that species form, a particular population becomes isolated, and no longer interbreeds with the rest of the species. Over time, small differences become large differences. Would a wolf recognize a chihuahua as something related to itself? Could they produce offspring? Not sure if anyone has tried the experiment, but I'm feeling that a chihuahua is getting outside the envelope of "wolf" and perhaps even "dog" and is becoming something else, whose common ancestor, many generations ago was a wolf.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit