You are looking at the individual level that has some relevance to evolution but is not what the research on evolution focuses on.
Biological evolution is about hereditary changes
in the gene pool of a population.
Whatever mutations (or not) happens at the level of an individual or in the product of reproduction (zygote), it is not yet biological evolution.
Evolution can be observed when the gene pool of one generation is compared to the gene pool of their (grand)offspring. If the gene pool cannot be quantified, the phenotypes (what the creatures look like) may serve as a crude indication of the underlying genetical changes. A caveat is that genetical changes do not always lead to changes in the measurable phenotypes, so there may happen evolution even when the observable phenotypes do not change visibly.
Claims that evolution cannot produce particular biological structures are problematic because evolution does work to produce various biological structures. Although we do not know every detail by any means, we do have a wide range of data that points to likely evolutionary pathways. As we approach a specific problematic transition, the pattern is to have things gradually get more foggy. There is not an abrupt chasm edge.
Of course, that does not show that evolution will explain the phenomenon, either. But claims to demonstrate impossibility do not hold up well.
Copulation has to be the start. Just because you do not identify it for a few generation or as a group does not change that
No wonder science refuses to recognise IC or integration. It seems incapable of integrating its own theories together. You are so busy looking at the hairs on a leaf you fail to see the rest of the tree let alone the forest.
I thought philosophy was not part of evolution
Evolution has no gaols, so how can it work towards anything. And that is the whole point! ICs cannot just form by a quick deviation or two.
How can you possibly make that sort of assertion.
So you do not believe in the impossible,
As the saying goes, Impossible is easy, miracles take a bit longer.
This sub-field of evolution is literally referred to as population genetics. Evolution is sometimes defined as a change in allele frequencies, which is a population metric. This is foundational biology, not something cooked up by posters in this forum.
Thatās what people are telling you. You are so busy looking at the hairs on a leaf (mutations during fertilization) that you fail to see the rest of the tree let alone the forest (changes in a population over time).
You should already know the basics of evolutionary change!
Just because
Does not mean you can ignore its existence!
You canāt build a tree without roots. The roots of ToE are the process of evolutionary change. None of your other sub-fields can exist without that change. You cannot have
If none of the individuals changed, or there was not a first change! Or a sequence of changes. each one is an individual. it is not a species, or phenotype, it is an individual.
You can compare what DNA you like, You can make whatever genealogy you like, but if one creature does not give birth to the next you have nothing!
Procreation is by two creatures (with a few hermaphrodite exceptions) but never any more than two. Its not like they all feed into one gene pool and then take a slice out into the world with it. They are individuals. and pairs, and offspring. (with a few hermaphrodite exceptions, but i really should not have to be so specific)
If you donāt know then perhaps you should read up on it.
First, you remain fixed on sexual reproduction. Evolution happens in asexual reproduction, think bacteria or virus.
In every sexual reproduction the offspring are always genetically different from their parents. These changes include mutations. This isnāt evolution. First any change has to spread through the population so it becomes fixed and doesnāt just fade away. Then natural selection can begin. The result being an increase in the number of members of the population with this change.
And you still donāt know how evolution works.
I didnāt mean sex, you really need to learn how evolution actually works. Not some strawman caricature. As shown by your misunderstanding.
Your instructions were a little unclear, so I simulated it like how DNA actually works. Duplications (Dup), Substitution (Sub), Deletions (Del), and Insertions (In). I will be refraining from complex TEs and large deletions/insertions. All mutations will consist of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)/point mutations. The spaces are for visual clarity.
ANT (Original)
ANT ANT (Dup)
ANT AT (Del)
ANT AS (Sub)
ANT IS (Sub)
ANT ISM (In)
ANT ANT ISM (Dup)
ANT AN ISM (Del)
ANT PAN ISM (In)
ANT PIAN ISM (In)
ANT APIAN ISM (In)
ANT ARIAN ISM (Sub)
ANT ARIANISM (Moved For Clarity)
ANT ANT ARIANISM (Dup)
ANT AN ARIANISM (Del)
ANT MAN ARIANISM (In)
ANT MEN ARIANISM (Sub)
ANT MENT ARIANISM (In)
ANT ANT MENT ARIANISM (Dup)
ANT AT MENT ARIANISM (Del)
ANT ATE MENT ARIANISM (In)
ANT ALE MENT ARIANISM (Sub)
ANT ABLE MENT ARIANISM (In)
ANT TABLE MENT ARIANISM (In)
ANT STABLE MENT ARIANISM (In)
ANT STABLES MENT ARIANISM (In)
ANT STAB LIS MENT ARIANISM (Sub)
ANT STABLISH MENT ARIANISM (In)
ANTE STABLISH MENT ARIANISM (In)
ANT ESTABLISHMENT ARIANISM (Moved For Clarity)
ANT ANT ESTABLISHMENT ARIANISM (Dup)
ANT AN ESTABLISHMENT ARIANISM (Del)
ANT AS ESTABLISHMENT ARIANISM (Sub)
ANT IS ESTABLISHMENT ARIANISM (Sub)
ANT DIS ESTABLISHMENT ARIANISM (In)
ANTI DIS ESTABLISHMENT ARIANISM (In)
ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM (Moved For Clarity)
This was fun to do, I think evolutionary mechanisms might have gone on a less direct path, but this is certainly one path to take. Iād be interested in anyone elseās solutions.
This reminded me of a similar exercise that we were given as a challenge at work about four years ago. Given the names of two team members, get from one to the other in as few steps as possible. I actually used an evolutionary algorithm to search for an optimal solution.
In the evolutionary algorithm I have implemented here, the fitness function is calculated on the basis of the number of steps for ladders that have reached their target, or the Levenshtein distance between the target and the final step in the ladder for those that have not. The list of words in the ladder is used as the genome, and new genomes for candidates in each generation are determined by finding the words at the start of the ladder that are common to both parents.
The code is on GitHub if anyone is interested. It could be easily adapted to allow for duplications and multiple words: I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.
It was an interesting exercise, and it reinforced one point in particular. When discussing any scientific theory, evolution included, hands-on experience and practical demonstrations that illustrate the underlying principles are always going to carry more weight than dubious analogies or discussions about philosophy, worldviews or politics.
I wonder whether you have read through the whole thread and seen comments on the accuracy, or not, of the analogy?
Did you ever look backwards from the final word? Obviously evolution cannot do that
Then there is this ongoing discussion about the final step.
If i had stipulated that the last step had to be two words into one could it still be done? And, more important, do youu see why I might demand it?
It seems that several people here are obsessed with the complexity of evolutionary change (ironic) so that they refuse to accept the it stats with the making of a zygote from a sperm and an egg. (Except in hemaphrodite reproduction where there is actually only one set of donor DNA so any change will be very limited)
I acknowledge that analogies have limited value, but it sees that scientists do not value them at all. If they did, they would at least consider the ramifications involved instead of dogmatically sticking to what they have come to think.
(I will answer them in a separate post so as not to involve you)
Richard
As you have never yet tried to define evolutionary change it comes as some interest
Go on, expound (Not send me to some paper or other) summarise, tell it in your own words. Prove to me that you are not just talking hot air and insults.
How does a creature , or population, just change without it happening through progeny? (or mutation!)
So can an IC be made up from just two donors then?
I think you will find that contradicts the accepted definition of IC.
The point of this exercise was not to prove that Evolution can produce and IC, but to demonstrate why it canāt. And you have done a fine job, thank you.
I await your answer to the previous post.
Hint
If you are going to start ranting on about Natural Selection, or competition, or even herd dynamics you might first consider how those populations came to be different. How those characteristics emerged. Where they cam from.
Unless I am mistaken (Which I am sure you think I am) what you are going to trot out are secondary changes that still rely on the deviations and mutations to form them.
Not really. Horizontal gene transfer in asexually reproducing bacteria has been known for some time. So have allele frequency changes in externally fertilising fish and cross-pollination in flowering plants. Phenotypic plasticity, clonal reproduction and Texas whiptail lizards are also relevant.
Natural selection filters individuals, that is true. Phenotype is used as a biological term that refers to what the individuals look like (observable characteristics of individuals). If several individuals have the same phenotype, then we can assume that they experience the same selection pressures. Therefore, phenotypes may be more relevant than individuals when we talk about biological evolution at the level of populations.
Mutations that happen in individuals are raw material from which natural selection may filter those that affect the relative production of (grand)offspring. If the mutations are heritable, that may cause such filtering that we call evolution.
Evolution that happens without visible changes in the phenotype may be meaningful because what changes at the level of DNA may be an intermediate step towards a more influential change that requires two or more mutations to happen.
You are completely oblivious to how excruciatingly obvious it is that there is so much that not only you donāt know, but that you donāt know you donāt know.
That one comment demonstrates ignorance of Downs syndrome, polyploidy, interspecies HGT, causes of transsexuality, horticultural varieties, the spread of bacterial antibiotic resistance, protein production levels, recessive mutations, plasmids and a hell of a lot more that I either didnāt think of in 30 seconds or donāt know about.
Are you really not aware that duplication of some or all of an organismās genetic material can have a considerable effect on phenotype, viability, fitness, survivability, reproductive compatibility or even species?
(I donāt know why Iām ssking, since you wouldnāt have written what you did if you were aware of any of those things. You might as well be telling a motorcycle engineer that one more wheel wouldnāt make any difference.)
As others have stated, duplication and alteration of existing genes to modify function or introduce novel functionality is a commonplace mechanism of adaptation. There is no real barrier presented by stepwise modification. Furthermore, more recent investigation has demonstrated that even existing stretches of non-coding DNA can be appropriated to form expressing genes. This came out of research into how it was that cold water fish had antifreeze protein genes that seemed to have no counterpart in closely related warmer water relative species.
New genes can arise through duplication of a pre-existing gene or de novo from non-coding DNA, providing raw material for evolution of new functions in response to a changing environment. A prime example is the independent evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein genes (afgps) in the Arctic codfishes and Antarctic notothenioids to prevent freezingā¦.Here, we demonstrate that afgps in codfishes have evolved de novo from non-coding DNA 13ā18 Ma, coinciding with the cooling of the Northern Hemisphere.
It should be noted that non-coding can include degenerate pseudogenes, so such sequences would not be entirely random, but it is evident that functional genetic material need not be built one nucleotide at a time.
Through comprehensive comparative analyses of newly sequenced genomes of winter flounder and grubby sculpin, along with available high-quality genomes of cunner and 14 other related species, the study revealed that near-identical AFPI proteins originated from distinct genetic precursors in each lineage. Each lineage independently evolved a de novo coding region for the novel ice-binding protein while repurposing fragments from their respective ancestors into potential regulatory regions, representing partial de novo originationāa process that bridges de novo gene formation and the neofunctionalization of duplicated genes.
