Of course I appreciate it. The problem is that we have known about this for a long time, and now the scientists are finally admitting that climate change brings about new species. This goes against the traditional Darwinian model that says that genetic change brings about new species.
What the study does not say although what it strongly implies and is true, is that climate changes caused by the asteroid strike and other factors closed down ecological niches favorable to the dinosaurs, causing them to die out, and opened ecological niches favorable to the plecental mammals causing them to flourish. This is how evolutionary change works, contrary to what Darwin thought and Dawkins thinks, and the way most evolutionary scientists think today.
Another study listed indicates that these changes in the environment began before the asteroid strike so that the position of the predatory dinosaurs was shaky before the strike which was the coup de grace. Again this puts environmental change in the forefront of evolutionary change contrary to scientific thought.
I can’t imagine a single evolutionary biologist finding anything at all surprising or controversial about the idea that climate change causes extinctions and opens new niches, and creates the possibility of new species. How many evolutionary biologists have you talked to about these issues?
Ecology is finally getting its due. And since nobody is falling on their sword about preserving Darwin’s ORIGINAL views … can we all move along onto the same page of the brand new book?
I think it is safe to say that today’s Evolutionary Scientists are perfectly happy with discussing issues of ecology.
Can you accept this? Or will you continue to post that somehow we are all being cheated by the scientists who hate to talk about ecology issues?
I’m no expert in evolutionary biology but I understand the philosophical implications involved. That climate change brings about new species does not go against the traditional Darwinian synthesis that genetic change brings about new species. Although this puts environmental change in the forefront of evolutionary change it is not contrary to scientific thought. If climate change brings about new species, it does not follow that genetic change does not bring about new species—the reason they are called new species is precisely because they have been genetically changed. Therefore, yes, climate change brings about new species for the simple reason that organisms become genetically changed. The semantics might be difficult for some to follow, however, it is clear and straightforward.
@Tony and @glipsnort, it is good to talk with you again.
Thank you for the positive feedback.
I am glad that we are in agreement. I really do not want to talk about my discussions with evolutionary biologists, but the meaning ecological evolution (to distinguish it from purely genetic evolution.)
The issue concerning evolution is not whether it occurs or not, but how it take place, and the issue here has been Is it guided or directed or not. Darwin as I understand him said that evolution was guided by Natural Selection. His understanding of how Natural Selection worked was based on Malthus’ population theories, which were succinctly described as “survival if the fittest.” However this view has never been verified and is not correct.
On the other hand the ecological view of species change has been scientifically verified and is correct. Ecological change takes place and this refers to many aspects in addition to climate change. Species within the environment are challenged to adapt to these changes.
Those who are able to do so will flourish and those who do not will not. It is that simple. No competition to survive, just adapting to the changes of nature.
It also reveals the purpose of evolution: to go and fill all the ecological niches of the earth with diversity of life, and eventually create humans in the Image of God, the Creator. The last point of course is an interpretation, but not far from the scientific evidence.
Survival of the fittest was always a useful phrase in terms of economy.
But perhaps it is helpful to actually break the phrase down into the “suite of concepts” it embodies:
Improved relative survival (individual better at avoiding getting eaten, and/or has greater life span);
Improved net fertility (individual has more offspring and/or has offspring that has more offspring and/or has offspring that is better at avoiding being eaten)
This can be because of ecological changes that newly favor one group of population members… or because of a new configuration of genetic factors in a group of population members.
You’re making distinctions that evolutionary biology doesn’t. All adaptive evolution represents adaptation to a particular environment, and that very much includes the ecological environment that is open to the organism. That has always been the understanding of evolutionary biologists, dating back to Darwin. At the same time, however, adaptive evolution always works by means of genetic changes filtered by natural selection. Those aren’t two views about how evolution proceeds: they’re two aspects of the same process. And yes, natural selection frequently involves competition between members of the same species.
Dawkins, who claims to speak for neoDarwinists and for the science of evolution in general (and I see very few people arguing against him,) claims that DNA is the sole engine of evolution. E. O. Wilson broke with him recently on the social nature of life that in particular points to the ability of social creatures, even insects, to adapt to new environments and this was supposed to be new.
Enough of the argument. Do you agree or disagree that ecological change directs evolution? If you disagree, give me an example.
You two are debating a single issue from two different directions.
Ecology makes different genes “winners” and “losers”.
Without the Genes … there would be no “winners” and “losers”.
Interestingly, if genes never changed, then changes in ecology wouldn’t be able to promote evolution. Conversely, however, ecology doesn’t ever have to change to have genetic changes (i.e., evolution) all by itself.
You’ve misunderstood them. As far as we know DNA(*) is the sole immediate cause of evolution. Every single evolutionary change takes place because of differences in DNA. Every one. But the changes that are selected for – that are responsible for adaptation – are almost always being driven by something in the environment. That doesn’t make them any less genetic. Ecology and DNA are both responsible for adaptive evolution.
(*) Leaving aside RNA viruses.
I wouldn’t use the word “directed”, since it suggests intentionality. But absolutely, adaptive evolution occurs in response to the environment, in directions made possible by the environment. Where have I suggested otherwise?
Now, can you give me an example of one of these changes that wasn’t mediated through changes to DNA?
I have tried to make it clear that I agree with Darwin in one important aspect. He divided evolution into two basic aspects, 1. (genetic) Variation and 2. Natural Selection.
Now as far as I am concerned, we are arguing about the nature of Natural Selection. I say that it is ecological. You seem to agree. I do not find anyone else who agrees with this position, certainly not Richard Dawkins, but that is besides the point.
“But absolutely, adaptive evolution occurs in response to the environment, in directions made possible by the environment.”
not at all. because the cavia gulo is the closest to apes one. and under the evolution model its not likely that the same exons will be loss in both cavia and apes in the most similar way. that are the closest in terms of pseudo gulo. but the creation model actually predict this because similar genome mean similar hot spot (usually).
more then that- we need to include the third exon that get partial loss. and its give us a chance of about 15% even if we ignore the claim above(1\3*1\5).
not at all. its true if we assume that the rat sequence changed. but if it isnt- then its not true. so its just an assupmtion. not science.
because this was the prediction of amwolfe from what i can remember.
Every evolutionary biologist on the planet would agree with my statement. If you think otherwise, you don’t understand what evolutionary biologists are saying.
The creation model predicts that mutational hot spots for major deletions occur in the same places in animals with genomes as divergent as humans and guinea pigs? Really? When and where was this prediction made? And what is the basis for it?
We don’t assume the rat sequence changed. We know that every sequence changes, and changes a lot in tens of millions of years. We can also check other species, to see if the rat differs from them as well. In fact, you appealed to that idea when you said that mice shared the mutations. Unfortunately for you, that isn’t true. So you want us to compare to the mouse when you think it will support your case, but drop the idea when you think it won’t.
The whole thing is quite silly. A couple of scientists blundered in a paper, and they drew a conclusion that was obviously incorrect in an evolutionary framework. Some creationist somewhere saw it and leaped on it, thinking it refuted the evolutionary explanation of the GULO pseudogene. But the scientists and the creationist were both wrong – simply and trivially wrong. The rat sequence actually looked exactly like what we would expect under evolution. You’re left defending an argument that no longer makes any sense.
Since some people incorporate evolution into their concept of progressive creation, is that the reason why a certain Charismatic TV host used the term progressive evolution? I have one other request. Please review my thesis in the theology/philosophy blog concerning Genesis 1 and 2. Please fell free to make a statement. I hope you and yours had a jolly holiday. I believe you were discussing that somewhere under this topic.
its easy: creation model predict that the hot spots will be more similar in closer species then in non similar. so if the cavia is the closest to apes that have a pseudo-gulo we can predict that it will be lost in a more similar way then lets say a bird gulo.
so again- the main point is that the cavia share the same loss like the ape one.
true that it can be change. but we cant know what is the change (because we cant know how the original sequence look like). so again its just an assumtion.
not true. the rat and cavia are more similar then cavia and human . so evolution doesnt predict that those bp will be closer between cavia and human then cavia and rat.
So grateful for @glipsnort’s valuable contributions for the last several days here, filling in details I didn’t have and showing the perfect coherence of all this data with standard evolutionary theory.
Sorry, dcs, I was asking you to do precisely as Steve said. I said, so what if the messed-up exons coincide? We don’t know exactly how they are messed up, which will doubtless be more telling. So let’s move away from exon number this and that, and instead talk about actual DNA base pairs to see what the mutations show. You still haven’t done that, and we’re still waiting for you to prove the point.
amwolfe. your original prediction was that this gulo get different mutations. so i showed that some mutations actually happened in both gulo (the mutations that erased the 1,5 and half of the 6 exons). so your prediction failed. do you agree with this fact or not?
I asked you when the prediction was made. As far as I can tell, you made up this prediction after seeing the data. It’s also a prediction that lacks any mechanism. There is a mechanism for large deletions to occur at the same genomic location – repeated sequence at that location – but there’s no sign of that here, and it’s very unlikely that repeats would be present in the same location in two such dissimilar genomes. So once more: when and where was this prediction made? On what basis?
Once again, it’s not an assumption. It’s a hypothesis, one that you can test by comparing other species. If they all agree at a site, with only the rat disagreeing, then the obvious explanation is that it’s the rat that changed. This was a test you wanted to make, until you learned that the results wouldn’t support your model. Is that a scientific approach?
Evolution predicts that there will be mutations in the rat gene, just as there are mutations in every lineage. It does indeed predict that at some fraction of sites (a fraction that can be estimated), human and guinea pig should indeed be identical and different from rat.
You haven’t showed that they’re the same mutations. You could: compare the sequences and find the endpoints of the deletions. Until you do, you haven’t shown anything. Meanwhile, there are 61 known single-base substitutions in the human lineage and 60 in guinea pigs. Of these, between 2 and 4 are shared between the two species.