Posted on 12/26/2009 11:47:03 AM PST by Clint Williams
gamebittk writes
"In 1959, Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev set out to breed a tamer fox that would be easier for their handlers in the Russian fur industry to work with. Much to the scientist's shock, changes no one had expected emerged after just 10 generations. The foxes began behaving playfully, were smaller in size, and even changed color — much like dogs."Belyaev died in 1985, but the experiment continued (PDF) in his absence, and to this day provides strong evidence to parts of evolutionary theory. The experiment eventually branched out to involve other species as well.
Only a part of evolution, natural selection, is proven by this. But it needs little proof, as we are surrounded by it at all times.
“which this experiment and many others have demonstrated are pretty malleable, have had millions upon millions of years to adapt and change. . .”
I think it just proves that, by reducing the amount of genetic information through selective breeding, we can breed for certain traits, or against certain traits.
Which we have known since the dawn of mankind.
Which many of us don’t think was millions of years ago.
I disagree, Wonder Warthog, evolution calls for the addition of a tremendous, really an incredible amount, of genetic information.
Selective breeding is just reducing the amount of genetic information.
Although we can easily see intra-species variation, maybe sterility is one of the side effects of getting too far from centerline.
Higher melanin = more aggressive.
Can be replicated in other species, we know.
“We’re just a couple of wild and crazy guys.”
Not at all. Completely wrong.
"Selective breeding is just reducing the amount of genetic information."
Again. Totally wrong. PLEASE go understand some science.
What else is there??? Natural selection is all that evolution needs.
Natural selection is an intermediate process that is the culmination of the processes that went before it. For example, an early stage evolutionary process is diversity in offspring. Without diversity among individuals, the entire species is threatened, and natural selection is based in luck, which is not a good criteria. Winners are not winners unless there are also losers.
Natural selection is likewise followed up by the survival and propagation of the offspring. You might get the “best” horse and donkey to have offspring, but because it is a mule, it will be sterile.
Another example is the Cavendish banana. All Cavendish banana trees are clones, as their bananas do not produce viable seeds. While being the most popular banana guarantees that humans will spread the Cavendish around the world, it is still destined to die out because it has no variation.
And then there is the bizarre case of the Wolbachia bacteria, that often attacks insects. It is only transmitted by female insects, and often kills male insects, but encourages female insects to lay viable female eggs. So some insects reproduce almost entirely females, and others cannot reproduce without the Wolbachia bacteria.
It has long been known that the creatures that evolve the fastest are those with the most parasites and diseases. While some of this is indeed based in natural selection, in which the parasites and diseases kill all but the strongest; often they impart advantages to their hosts as well, helping the weak to survive where the strong would perish.
Animals themselves often work against natural selection, giving support to the weak which is not given to the strong.
Educate me. What species change does not involve the addition of genetic information to the genetic code?
"...evolution calls for the addition of a tremendous, really an incredible amount, of genetic information."
Your statement is above. Correctly, evolution involves only small changes to the genetic code, not "the addition of a tremendous, really an incredible amount...".
Stop reading the "Institute for Creation Research" garbage that GGG posts incessantly, and study some real science. Evolution has been verified by multitudinous different studies, including duplication in the laboratory.
Genetic variation is inherent in the laws of physics (and hence in genetics). Natural selection IS the survival of "winners" over "losers", no more, no less.
It doesn't matter a tap whether the banana is spread by humans, or that some processes slightly alter the process of selection, it still happens, and is still the driver for evolution.
My point is that you have to look at the multi-generational system, not just *a* contest.
Take two couples, the “winners” and the “losers”. The “winners” beat the losers in everything, and the “losers” just survive. The “winners” have 10 children, and the “losers” only have one. But none of the “winners” 10 children have children. So if the “losers” one child has a child, *they*, not the “winners”, are the natural selection winners.
You cannot tell from looking at the two couples what their offspring will do. So you have to look at them over generations.
The Cavendish banana is damned, because it has no genetic diversity. One disease could wipe them all out. And there are several diseases waiting in the wings. And I say this with some certainty, because exactly this happened to the predecessor species of banana that everybody ate before the 1960s, the Gros Michel, which has almost been wiped out.
And genetic diversity is *not* guaranteed in genetics. Humans have only 46 chromosomes. A fern plant, the rattlesnake fern, has 184. An Australian ant, the Jack Jumper Ant, has only two chromosomes. This implies that diversity was sacrificed to save cellular energy.
That’s why I also mentioned the Wolbachia bacteria. It has effectively eliminated the need for males from entire species. There is no way of determining a natural selection outcome from this action. Therefore it can be seen as apart from natural selection.
Yes, but that would bea different process, and therefore"devolution."
So for a whale type creature to evolve into a cow type creature (that’s the latest idea I’ve heard of, that cows come from whales) one need add just a small amount of genetic information?
Or is was it a RINO?
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.