Skip to comments.
How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments
Science Daily ^
| 11/10/2008
Posted on 11/10/2008 5:50:16 AM PST by Soliton
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Evolution isn't random.
1
posted on
11/10/2008 5:50:16 AM PST
by
Soliton
To: Soliton
Naturalistic evolution is a combination of law and chance (randomness). Pre-adaptationism (such as this article implies) is a distinctly non-evolutionary concept. It's like proposing, "OK, it's unreasonable to believe a car evolved by chance... but if we
just assume the pre-existing existence of an automated, robotic car factory, then the spontaneous generation of an automobile becomes quite reasonable."
Sure. But such proposals elevate the level of complexity that now needs to be explained. Where did the presumed genetic machinery that can quickly produce refined responses to environmental changes come from, and how does it know which responses (out of an astronomical number of random and mostly harmful responses) are useful? It's no wonder that the originator of this whole approach to evolutionary difficulties, Dr. Dean Kenyon, eventually became a creationist.
2
posted on
11/10/2008 6:01:41 AM PST
by
Liberty1970
(Mainstream media is not mainstream. Call it what it is: Hate Media.)
To: Soliton
thats it... the election is over and now its time to put a burr under the collective saddle of the Luddites.
That means nothing is important anymore in Washington. That would be nice but it is not true.
3
posted on
11/10/2008 6:04:28 AM PST
by
Vaquero
("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
To: Soliton
Looks like Intelligent Design is finally catching on.
To: ClearCase_guy
Looks like Intelligent Design is finally catching on.YES! That IS what the article is about!
5
posted on
11/10/2008 6:30:16 AM PST
by
Soliton
(This 2 shall pass)
To: Soliton
So evolution is teleological, eh? Interesting.
To: Liberty1970
They proposed that organisms can learn how previous environments changed, and then use this information for their evolutionary advantage in the future. For example, if the available seeds tended to vary in size and hardness along history, then bird species might have learned to develop beaks with an easily tunable size and strength.
Gee. From this description - I assume from an evolutionist - you’d think that Somebody was designing and controlling this whole evolution thing according to a long-range strategy that remembers the past. Doesn’t sound very random to me.
7
posted on
11/10/2008 7:01:17 AM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Evolution is not random. If I interpret this correctly, organisms develop a genetic memory that allows them to adapt more efficiently to changing environmental conditions. Rather than relying solely on the genetic drift (as in an unchanging environment), these populations assemble a “toolbox” whereby they don't have to reinvent the wheel as conditions change. This, coupled with genetic drift and selection, drives the evolutionary machinery - no design or control needed.
8
posted on
11/10/2008 7:16:43 AM PST
by
stormer
To: Soliton
9
posted on
11/10/2008 7:30:20 AM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
To: stormer
Interesting that you too are using all “active verbs” to describe these random mutations: including his poorly defined “genetic "memory"” : “assemble”, “reinvent the wheel” ("invent the wheel" in the first place” ?), “relying”, and even “adapt”.
Evolution (as proposed) only allows random mutations at random times. Some live - and some of those mutations may get passed on to the next generation. The rest die.
His premise requires a long series of changes - unless you allow that the DNA/genes are this “storage device” - but then you still need to (1) cause a second random mutation to “stop the first (beneficial) mutation, then (2) “store the stopped mutation sufficiently accurately so that it can be re-started, but NOT be active for many generations; then (3) have ANOTHER random mutation to “unstop” the second change - but NOT destroy the first random mutation; then (4) and a fourth random mutation NOT happen to stop the now-needed third random mutation from getting “turned off” too early.
I supposed all that could happen. Randomly.
8<)
10
posted on
11/10/2008 7:30:55 AM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
So evolution is teleological I didn't see the word in the article, but if you believe in invisible things without evidence, I suppose anything is possible in your worldview.
11
posted on
11/10/2008 7:38:46 AM PST
by
Soliton
(This 2 shall pass)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Semantics aside, the fundamental issue is the concept of “randomness”. The term implies that the opportunity for any and every change is equal - this is not the case. You seem to want to make a mathematical argument out of biological constructs.
12
posted on
11/10/2008 7:42:51 AM PST
by
stormer
To: stormer
13
posted on
11/10/2008 8:36:05 AM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Soliton
To: Gitche Gumee
So...a Man is a Bird is a Bug is a Plant......that’s what you’re saying?
15
posted on
11/10/2008 1:30:40 PM PST
by
scottdeus12
(Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
To: Soliton
“Evolution isn’t random.”
So you are saying it’s ordered?
16
posted on
11/10/2008 1:35:56 PM PST
by
scottdeus12
(Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Seeds are amazing.
They each contain the respective design/blueprint to construct, replicate and multiply it’s own kind.
What if there was no “big bang” but rather just the germination of a “universe seed”
17
posted on
11/10/2008 2:26:47 PM PST
by
freedom9
To: freedom9
Nah. 8<)
Genesis describes the Big Bang in the same exact sequence that science today describes it. (It is off a few decimals places, but - heck - the old shepherds didn’t exactly have a zero.)
Much less logarithms and powers-of-ten yet ....
18
posted on
11/10/2008 3:01:15 PM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: scottdeus12
So you are saying its ordered?Evolution follows the laws of physics like everything else. It is therefore limited in the direction it can take.
19
posted on
11/10/2008 3:48:05 PM PST
by
Soliton
(This 2 shall pass)
To: Soliton
Non viability is something of a “death sentence” isn't it? We are all imperfect replicators and the descendants of a long line of imperfect replicators, all of whom had to be viable and reproductively sound.
On a molecular basis that is a fairly high bar to clear, keeps out the ‘riff raff’. ;)
20
posted on
11/10/2008 3:53:45 PM PST
by
allmendream
(Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson