there must be more to it

[Mish]

We have eyes because our site-less ancestors died out. The mutant freaks who developed photoreceptive cells survived to reproduce.

But did they really develop vision by accident or was them developing vision completely predictable before they actually developed it? If time and evolution is reshuffled, will we once again have the planet dominated by seeing creatures? If yes, this proves that form follows function. No matter how many evolutions animals go through they will still have sight because its needed for survival.

[IndiReloaded]

So basically what it means there were high trees and longer necks were needed to reach them. So over a period of time via function (I suppose continous stretching of necks) and soft inheritance longer necks were developed to fulfil that need of reaching the higher branches. Meaning if the trees weren't high (i.e. if there was no need for longer necks) then longer necks would not have been developed. The form followed function in this particular example.

Everything you say is okay right up until what I bolded.

NO! There is NOT causal relationship b/t the tall trees & longer necks. That is the key point you are missing. Mutations are RANDOM, look up what actually produces mutation if you are curious. Its all stochastic processes. What happened is what Gribble already said:

There *happened* to be giraffe who expressed longer necks. B/c they could reach more food (presumably--mbe they were further from the ground & therefore resistant to some ground fungus) those giraffe survived to reproduce.

Lamark was a smart guy, and didn't understand this point. Its subtle and seems to give a lot of ppl trouble. But its quite simple if one simply takes the NEED for a *reason* out of the equation.

Evolution = random changes that get selected for over time.

No "need" for need in that simple formula. Time, beyond the scope of what most humans can imagine, does the rest.

[DoesntMatter]

Lamark, lmao.

[IndiReloaded]

Anyway, Eco now has more than enough to write a VERY nice paper. I'd be shocked if a first year bio student was able to regurgitate most of what we've discussed, much less understand it.

[DoesntMatter]

lol are you kidding me? This thread was about fuccking species evolution

[Mish]

Everything you say is okay right up until what I bolded.

NO! There is NOT causal relationship b/t the tall trees & longer necks. That is the key point you are missing. Mutations are RANDOM, look up what actually produces mutation if you are curious. Its all stochastic processes. What happened is what Gribble already said:

There *happened* to be giraffe who expressed longer necks. B/c they could reach more food (presumably--mbe they were further from the ground & therefore resistant to some ground fungus) those giraffe survived to reproduce.

Indi, just to point out this goes against Lamarkcism:

Lamarck incorporated two ideas into his theory of evolution, in his day considered to be generally true:

1. Use and disuse – Individuals lose characteristics they do not require (or use) and develop characteristics that are useful.
2. Inheritance of acquired traits – Individuals inherit the traits of their ancestors.

Examples of what is traditionally called "Lamarckism" would include:

* Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees (especially Acacias), strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks (also known as "soft inheritance").

The reason why Giraffes have longer necks is clearly not due to random mutation according to Lamarck's theory. It's due to Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees, they strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks (also known as "soft inheritance").

[IndiReloaded]

Lamark is wrong, Mish.

Do you understand what I'm saying about mutations being caused by stochastic events, or not?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic[/url]

EDIT: I will agree that these points are true:

1. Use and disuse – Individuals lose characteristics they do not require (or use) and develop characteristics that are useful.
2. Inheritance of acquired traits – Individuals inherit the traits of their ancestors.

However, one needs to be careful to understand that what I bolded is NOT a causal agent for evolution. It is merely a statement of fact for what actually occurs. And Darwin also made these points, fwiw.

[ecojeanne]

i have to say, i'm 50% glad i brought this subject up and 50% wishing i didn't. thanks indi for the videos. part of me wants to know and am elated to find out and another part of me thinks i'm distroying what makes me happy to believe. i think for me this is threshold moment/door that already i've partially gone thru and i can't go back. i'm too inquisitive. i'm also interested in abiogenesis. i grew up with both parents believing in God and so i do. i find this hard to take in because of this. but i know this is a moment for me to break away(even tho i've always been inclined to anyway in general). thanks indi and missleepy. i do feel a little naive too. school for me wasn't a time i cared about listening, it's only now i actually care at all. this is confusing and difficult for me, i'll update with what i find out.

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"You were the one who told me to go back & reread what I understood better than you from the first. But thank you for admitting her question does relate to evolution. I was quite clear about my points, unlike you. And yes, I do know more than you. Sorry, that's not condescending, just the way it is on this one."

actually, you're the one who didn't understand and then falsely accused me of mixing up abiogenesis and evolution. Read posts 22 and 26. Both came before your reply to me in which you accused me of confusing the two concepts even though I specifically made separate mention of the origin of life and natural selection. I provided a more thorough explanation than you and, for the some reason, you attacked me as though you felt I was stealing the spotlight from you with your 'all-mighty' credentials. <rolls eyes>

[Mish]

Lamark is wrong, Mish.

Do you understand what I'm saying about mutations being caused by stochastic events, or not?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic[/url]

No I don't understand why he is wrong, sorry Indi. Please be more specific.

Here is a case study to support my posts:

n 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutagenesis. If bacteria that had overcome their own inability to consume lactose passed on this "learned" trait to future generations, it could be argued as a form of Lamarckism

Other examples from ontogenic evolution or Baldwin effect

The "Baldwin effect" is better understood in evo-devo literature as a scenario in which a character or trait change occurring in an organism as a result of its interaction with its environment becomes gradually assimilated into its developmental genetic/epigenetic repertoire (Simpson, 1953; Newman, 2002).

As an example, suppose a species is threatened by a new predator and there is a behavior that makes it more difficult for the predator to kill individuals of the species. Individuals who learn the behavior more quickly will obviously be at an advantage. As time goes on the ability to learn the behavior will improve (by genetic selection), and at some point it will seem to be an instinct.

The appearance of lactose tolerance in human populations with a long tradition of raising domesticated animals for milk production has been suggested as another example. This argument holds that a feedback loop operates whereby a dairy culture increases the selective advantage from this genetic trait, while the average population genotype increases the collective rewards of a dairy culture.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwinian_evolution[/url]

[IndiReloaded]

IndiReloaded says:

"You were the one who told me to go back & reread what I understood better than you from the first. But thank you for admitting her question does relate to evolution. I was quite clear about my points, unlike you. And yes, I do know more than you. Sorry, that's not condescending, just the way it is on this one."

actually, you're the one who didn't understand and then falsely accused me of mixing up abiogenesis and evolution.

You did mix them up. Do you have anything else useful to contribute to this thread, Neo, or are you just going to continue to bitch?

[Junket]

As an example, suppose a species is threatened by a new predator and there is a behavior that makes it more difficult for the predator to kill individuals of the species. Individuals who learn the behavior more quickly will obviously be at an advantage. As time goes on the ability to learn the behavior will improve (by genetic selection), and at some point it will seem to be an instinct.

[/I]

That's called culture.

The only way I can see that theory being tested is if you take an animal that has learned a behavioral trait away from it's parents and environment in it's early years and test it's behavior after it's been put back in its native environment when it reaches adult hood.

[IndiReloaded]

Mish, all you need to do is provide a mechanism whereby DNA would be able to respond *specifically* to an environmental stimulus. This will be difficult, as DNA (and other nucleic acids) mutate due to stochastic processes. Random, in other words.

If you understand this point, then you understand about the causality problem. Even with the bacteria example given, there was *selection* for those strains that could process lactose. You need to understand the difference between selection and response. Not the same. I already mentioned that we can produce selection artificially in the lab. I'm not meaning with bacteria, btw. I'm talking about actual selection at the chemical level, on RNA & DNA directly.

The giraffes could have been evolving b/c of a fungi living in the grass that killed those who were shorter (closer) to it. Neck length is the trait that permitted survival, but there is no reason to think that neck length was CAUSED by a need to reach those higher trees. Or escape the fungus. Cause & effect is your problem, Mish.

Watch the vids. Until you tell me you have done so, I won't respond further. Its all in there, even done with computers in a language you will understand.

[IndiReloaded]

[I]The "Baldwin effect" is better understood in evo-devo literature as a scenario in which a character or trait change occurring in an organism as a result of its interaction with its environment becomes gradually assimilated into its developmental genetic/epigenetic repertoire (Simpson, 1953; Newman, 2002).[/url]

This is a meme. Different from molecular evolution. Even they had to resort to Darwinian evolution when they mentioned genetic effects that might allow the behaviour to be learned. That is stochastic.

[DoesntMatter]

Everyone shut the fucck up and go watch the clips I posted from The Boondocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!



NOWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!