99.9% Of a People Who Believe In Evolution Don't Understand It. (page 2)

Space Madness

I wasn't asking about bacteria, as we don't seem to disagree on that point. I was asking about animals and their environment. How exactly would an animal adapt to its environment on a genetic level?

What a diatribe. The evolution is well observed in the nature even within timespan of several thousands years. You make extremely grave mistake with your reasoning SM, when you insist that 1) species do not adapt 2) environment stays the same. Neither is is true. Environment is constantly changing and there were times in Earth's history when climate was much warmer, humid, and stable; or time when it was arid and dry, with extreme range of temperature; or not so recent ice age where glaciers covered much of the Northern Hemispehre. Mountains do change, they get uplifted or eroded, and with it extensive changes in environment like temperature, pressure, rain, weather pattern... The rate of uplift is well measured within the precession of a few mms and only <.???.> thinks that Rocky and Appalachian Mountains were the same for millions of years. Do you really think that species were always the same in West Virginia millions years ago when Alleghany plateau was the same sea level as is currently Tibet and Appalachians were as high as Himalayah? What happened to forests that covered the shores of the Tethys Sea, while today we have desert in Levant and Central Asia? What happened to flora, insects, and all the food chain when the environment had changed during the tectonic plate movements? Either they adapted or became exctinct. When the environment did changed so did its species. We do not see saber tooth cats and mammoths today because our temperature is much higher than was 10000 years ago, the food for them disappeared and they did not adapt. Why did bobcat survived the Ice Age and saber tooth cat did not?

Creationism is nothing more than fairy tale that was discussed by illiterate nomads around tribal fires who did not understand the world around them.

Space Madness

@kaik

You're completely misunderstanding my post. The "evolution" that biologist speak of is nothing like the "evolution" that 99.9% of believers speak of. Secondly natural selection does exist, but it is not due to animals adapting to the environment, which is impossible. Concerning the rest of your post, I never said environments don't change. Ecosystems and biomes are a completely different topic that I'm not interested in discussing. Also can you explain to me your understanding of natural selection?

LisaRose

As you can see biologist do not believe organisms evolve to adapt to their environment. That is simply impossible. I've heard people on this site make that argument many times, it's not true.

An individual organism does not evolve, who ever said that they did? That is not how evolution works. Species evolve. Or don't.

A common misconception is that a mutation produces a novel adaptation precisely when a population “needs” it to confront a new environmental challenge. For example, many people mistakenly believe that antibiotics createresistance; that is, that resistance arises in bacteria in response to expo- sure to the drugs

Who has ever said this? There has never been any suggestion of need when it comes to evolution, evolution is not a sentient thing. Changes happen to the environment, an individual creature is either able to survive or not, a creature with a genetic mutation that is better suited to the change in environment will survive while a creature without that mutation will not. If the change is big enough and no mutation occurs to enable an organism to survive, it will die out, just as the dinosaurs did.

I think you are misunderstanding things that are said about evolution that are not meant to be taken literally. I am a lay person, I never went to college, but I never thought evolution taught that individual organisms evolved, or that bacteria "knew" to become resistant to antibiotics.

kaik

I do not want to feed a troll..

but it is not due to animals adapting to the environment, which is impossible

Of course they do, but you will not listen any reasoning.. There thousands of books and articles and peer reviews on this topics. Additionally, you insist that environment does not alter DNA. Do you ever figured out what UV light does to DNA? Do you know that DNA was changed due UV in the past where ozone layer was much weaker...

GrreatTeacher

Okay, off from bacteria and their antibiotic environment and on to animals and their environments.

A large predatory bird usually eats fish. A mutation produces an extra talon that can be used in an opposable way with his other talons and becomes useful for catching and eating rodents. This becomes beneficial to the bird allowing more food security and more stable nesting and reproduction opportunities. His offspring will now have twice the variety of food and therefore be more fit for reproduction and so the extra talon, giving an edge to survival would remain in the population and become more prominent. Then, the bird could move farther inland and eat a diet of small rodents exclusively. Eventually the extra taloned bird who lives inland becomes a separate species from the water living birds who eat fish. Any extra mutations that allow the inland, rodent eating birds better survival could further differentiate the two species.

That's just a possible example. Think of a peacock trying to attract a mate. The environment is tough. If a peahen doesn't choose you, none of your genes get passed on. Then one day a peacock is born who has a colorful tail. More peahens chose him and so he gets to pass on a lot of his genes. Then another genetic mutation produces a longer and colorful tail and the peahens find him extremely attractive and he passes on even more of his genes. So the long colorful tail is spreading through the population because it is being selected for reproduction by the females. Thus, the peacock species eventually has very long and colorful tales in the male. It has adapted to the environment of female preference.

So, again, there are no genetic mutations in response to a particular need. Previous genetic mutations that are useful for survival in a particular are more likely to survive and thus pass on those genes to their offspring. Thus, the species has changed or adapted in response to its environment. Again, on a population or species level, not on an individual organism level.

kaik

LisaRose and others,

There are DNA mutations due several factors one of it is UV light and other is natural radioactive decay. UV light on earth was never constant, some period it was much stronger causing mutation of DNA. Ozone layer also did not exist 600 millions year ago and prior, and there were several periods when it was destroyed due catastrophic even (supernova explosion or asteroid impact). UV does alter DNA which causes to species mutated. Natural decay does it as well. We are surrouned by it. The article from Curtis University states:

While radioactivity occurs naturally in our bodies as well as in every living organism across the planet, it was never before thought to affect our DNA in such a direct way. Using high-performance computers, the research team from Curtin and Los Alamos National Laboratory were able to show radioactivity could alter molecular structures which encode genetic information, creating new molecules that do not belong to the four-letter alphabet of DNA.

Of course there is someone who claims that DNA did not change nor there is mechanism to it. UV light, and alpha and beta decay are obviously irrelevant to that person.

Space Madness

@LisaRose

That second quote was from the textbook, not me. If they felt the need to include that in their publication than it safe to say they heard that argument from plenty of people. You're not a biologist, the people who authored and proofread the textbook are, I'll take their word over yours that plenty of people erroneously say their is "need" in evolution. Also I used the "organisms" (with an 's') to cover all living things such as animals, plants, insects, bacteria, etc. I used the word corectlly but you obviously didn't know that, possibly because you never went to college.

@GrreatTeacher

You said " Thus, the species has changed or adapted in response to its environment." How does your example show change that was a response? ALL genetic mutations are random, how can DNA respond to an environment?

@kaik

UV lights cause somatic mutations, not germline mutations. If a person is exposed to too much radiation they will develope cancer, which is a mutation of somatic cells. The cancer will not be passed to the offspring if the DNA in the germ cells (sperm and eggs) where not affected. UV lights cause somatic mutations like skin cancer, but they don't affect germ cells, which means any mutation experienced by UV lights will not be passed to the next generation. To put it plainly, when a person gets skin cancer from UV lights, their children are not going to be born with skin cancer.

Witness My Fury

Don't make eye contact, dont poke it with a stick and whatever you do dont feed it.

Daniel1555

Species adapt in their evolution to the environment.

The newer field of epigenetics shows this clearly. There is a lot to be researched concerning this, as there still many unknown things for scientist exactly 'how' dna and genes are changed and 'how' environmental factors change it.

99.9% Of a People Who Believe In Evolution Don't Understand It.

Share this