Viruses intentionally choose how they infect

(Christy Hemphill) #241

Plants that do not get their energy from photosynthesis survive just fine getting their energy from other living photosynthetic plants or from fungi that decompose dead organic matter. Again, the “loss” was selected for by environmental pressures. Organisms don’t choose to evolve in a direction because it makes sense. Organisms with the genes for beneficial adaptations survive and pass their genes on to offspring.

(Martin R) #242

indeed, observed but not explained…

how many times evolved bioluminescence independently? As far as i know, it was like 50 times independently … the odds are irrelevant?

however, i got a better example

myrmecochory - seed dispersal by ants … 147 independent origins…

or C4 photosynthesis, 60 independent origins…

When you see all these, you sure the odds are irrelevant?

(Christy Hemphill) #243

I have no idea what the relevance of the odds of multiple lines of birds losing flight over time has to do with ERV insertions. What are you even talking about?

(Martin R) #244

alright, so what are the odds, that ‘meat’ eating plants evolve multiple times independently ? It is not easy to catch and digest a fly …you need lots of ‘tools’ to achieve it…

(Christy Hemphill) #245

“Fitness for an environmental niche” is indeed an explanation. One you would understand if you had even a basic layperson’s understanding of evolutionary theory.

(Martin R) #246

why all you guys think i don’t understand evolution? All of you guys keep repeating that i don’t understand evolution…

But nobody is concerned, how the same complex things evolve again and again by chance…

what are the odds that DNA replication evolves two times independently? You know, the leading strand, the lagging strand, okazaki fragments, and all the replication enzymes…

The odds are irrelevant? You sure?

(Martin R) #247

what are the odds that 200,000 ERVs would insert to the same site? What are the odds?

The odds are zero = common ancestry.

But when i talk about convergent evolution, the odds are irrelevant…

(Haywood Clark) #248

[quote=“martin_r, post:233, topic:39291”]
Get this:

Rapid convergent evolution:

“Male crickets on two Hawaiian islands recently lost song-producing wing structures”

so, how that happened? The same mutations came twice at the same moment?[/quote]

Maybe you should read before linking. The paper clearly states that the same mutations aren’t involved:
Mutant wing phenotypes are distinct on each island and are linked to different loci

That’s crystal clear. How could you miss it, Martin?

No, by selection, which isn’t chance.

You don’t understand evolution at the most basic level. You don’t understand facts written in clear English.

Mutant wing phenotypes are distinct on each island and are linked to different loci is not conjecture.

(Haywood Clark) #249

Natural selection is not chance. You don’t understand evolution.

(Martin R) #250

would you agree that first you have to have these mutations? and afterwards these mutations are selected… could you confirm this is the way how evolution works?

Mutations first, then the selection … is that so? Could you confirm?

(Martin R) #251

yes, i heard that like million times that natural selection is not a chance, and i heard like million times that i don’t understand evolution …

Then i also heard, that natural selection was meant more like a metaphor (150 years ago)

and, this is what some secular scientists think of natural selection, i will quote from a secular website, launched by James A. Shapiro (Jerry Coyne’s colleague) and prof. Denis Noble (they call themselves a THIRD WAY, they have a lot of other supporters from around the World)

so here is what they think about Natural Selection:

“…some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis…”

let me repeat this part:

… “without a real empirical basis…” !!!

(Christy Hemphill) #252

(Christy Hemphill) #253

@martin_r The conversation here has ceased to be productive or on topic. If you would like to ask specific questions about specific studies, please start a new thread, and keep it focused on a single topic and interacting with the answers provided. A bunch of “Well, what about this? What about this? What about this?” without any demonstrated attempt to interact with answers actual experts in the field have taken the time to give you is a waste of time for everyone.