the genetic influence of drugs

[Crankinit]

I don't think you understand evolution as well as you think you do.

Are you arguing that evolution takes place, not through natural selection as a response to random mutation, but by mutation that takes place as a direct reaction to the environment?

 

[spok]

could you explain to me how natural selection produced the modern day whale?

 

[Crankinit]

A wizard did it

 

[Jakeperson]

I don't think you understand evolution as well as you think you do.

Are you arguing that evolution takes place, not through natural selection as a response to random mutation, but by mutation that takes place as a direct reaction to the environment?

Both of these things have to be factored in.

 

[spok]

it's adaptation, it's a fact.......the environment an animal is in will cause physiological changes which are passed down genetically, the genetic changes aren't significant over a single generation, even ten generations but over millions of years a big change occurs

i'll use an analogy

a car manufacturer produces blue cars and blue cars only.........let's say there's a margin of error in the shade, some are lighter and some are darker

- the darker one's might be more popular (sexual selection)
- and the lighter one's might attract meteors from outer space (predation)
- the lighter one's also explode when exposed to the sun for prolonged periods of time (disease)

so there will be more dark blue cars. there are more dark blue cars on the road because of these factors of natural selection, but these factors didn't give them colour - the manufacturers spray gun did

in the same way......

africans don't have dark skin because factors of natural selection (predation, sexual selection, disease) have CAUSED it, that makes no sense. uv rays from the sun cause pigment to recede or advance

darkER skin might be preferred by the opposite sex, and lighter skin preferred by predators and disease, so you might get more darker skinned people out and about, but it isn't natural selection which has caused the skin to colour, the suns uv rays have done that

those factors of natural selection might allow the characteristic of darkER skin to proliferate BUT at the end of the day africans are dark skinned because of the ultra violet rays in the sun, not natural selection

Both of these things have to be factored in.

wise words if ever i've heard them often the case with these "a" or "b" arguments

i'll have to give random mutation a bit more interest......

 

[static_mind]

From what I gather and im no expert or pretend to be, but evolution bought about a gradual change in simple organisims with a slight mutation. If this mutation proved to be useful then this new animal thrived and the gene was passed on. Coloured skin however is natural selection. Africian's are exposed to massive amounts of UV light so those with darker skin tend to be better suited. In snowy areas like Europe and Russia where daylight is rare a white skin is needed so as much light as possiable is absorbed so the body can produce vitiamin D. If someone was black they would get rickets.

Hense same species *humans yet different colour. Natural selection favours blacks in sunny places and whites in dark places.


From what I gather anyway. something something...smelly

 

[Sameria]

That's exactly how it works static.

Random mutations, the strongest survive.

Environmental surroundings CAN have an effect, but it is usually much lesser than that of random mutation.

 

[Jakeperson]

A good example for us is hair. As a whole humans are getting less and less hairy since we invented clothes, we don't need it to keep us warm any more.

 

[footscrazy]

I don't think you understand evolution as well as you think you do.

Seconded. You don't seem to understand the fumdamentals of evolution or natural selection.

Spok, I know that if someone sits in the sun, they are going to tan. However, this is not changing their dna. If I sit in the sun all day, and get a dark tan, I'm not any more likely to give birth to a dark baby. Similarly, if I cut off my leg, I'm not anymore likely to give birth to as one legged baby. Why? Because genetics do not change over your lifetime. Cutting off my leg isn't going to change the genes in my DNA for two legs so my DNA reads 'one leg'. Neither will tanning change any of my genetics to say 'darker skin'. I can almost imagine you saying, well, cutting off your leg isn't going to be an advantage. But advantage simply means an individual that passes on their genes better. So, if I manage to have children, all my genes will be selected for, by the simple fact I've managed to pass them on.

 

[spok]

A good example for us is hair. As a whole humans are getting less and less hairy since we invented clothes, we don't need it to keep us warm any more.

using this example, how is 'slightly' less hair an advantage in natural selection? and why is 'slightly' more hair a disadvantage in natural selection? this random mutation would have to be marginal at best?......why did it present such a significant advantage against predation, disease, and in sexual selection?

if you wear a hat all day every day you will start to go bald.......the action of wearing clothes causing the progressive recession of the gene which facilitates body hair through genetic inheritance, a direct consequence of environmental influence, makes a lot of sense

if mutation were entirely random surely there would be a lot more pointless pieces hanging off most lifeforms. there are some out there which random mutation would explain very well, but for the most part just about every piece of most life forms has a physical purpose. and it's the action of "use it or lose it" which causes it to recede or advance within a lifetime (life weights get strong, play in the sun skin will darken, don't drive the long way to work and eventually you will forget how to make the journey)....but it's random mutation and natural selection that cause it to recede or advance over the lifetime of a species?

if our genes allow us to become conditioned to an environment within our own lifetime why is it so inconceivable that they might over the lifetime of a species?

instinct.....how can random mutation cause environment specific information to naturally occur within the brain? or is it repetition over [insert large number] of years and generations which progressively hardwired this into the genetic material, in the same way it does when a lifeform learns something within their own lifetime?

there's no doubt about it, natural selection refines a genetic lineage picking off the less suitable, and random mutation makes sense, but you surely can't ignore the evidence suggesting direct environmental influence

Because genetics do not change over your lifetime

i don't think anyone else here was disputing the fact that genes do change over a life time. mutation occurs within both reproductive system as well as embryo

if genes don't change over a life time that's bad news for the theory of evolution

i'll just remind you what you are arguing about: is this mutation random combined with natural selection, or is this direct environmental action combined with natural selection

 

[chemi]

using this example, how is 'slightly' less hair an advantage in natural selection? and why is 'slightly' more hair a disadvantage in natural selection? this random mutation would have to be marginal at best?......why did it present such a significant advantage against predation, disease, and in sexual selection?

http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm

Why Mammal Body Hair Is an Evolutionary Enigma

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

 

[Crankinit]

using this example, how is 'slightly' less hair an advantage in natural selection? and why is 'slightly' more hair a disadvantage in natural selection? this random mutation would have to be marginal at best?......why did it present such a significant advantage against predation, disease, and in sexual selection?

Take your example of body hair. Initially, it served to protect us against the elements. It had a real, tangible advantage that would favor those with a lot of it over those with less of it. However, once we adapted to an indoor lifestyle and started wearing clothing, this advantage disappeared. So now those with more body hair are at no advantage against the elements compared to those with less body hair. Their genes, which previously had a greater chance of being passed on, are now no more valuable than those of an individual with less body hair.

And now if there's a tangible advantage towards having less body hair (it could be more attractive to potential partners, or less likely to harbor infection, or even as simple as allowing more of the bodies finite resources to be put towards other development, just as speculation). Then eventually, over the course of generations, the genes for body hair will be less favored and will dimnish.

The same thing happens with creatures who live underground. They may have at some stage had eyesight, but since the advantage of being able to see is lost, instead of those who were born with weak eyes dying, they stand an equal chance as their peers of surviving, or perhaps an even higher one if the loss of eyesight allows them to develop other strengths that will help them thrive underground.

It helps if you step back and ponder a little on the scope of things. These changes aren't occuring instantaneously, or over a decade, or two, or 10, but over the course of thousands, hundreds of millions of years, hundreds and thousands and millions of generations.

http://creationresearch.org/crsq/art..._4/Bergman.htm

Why Mammal Body Hair Is an Evolutionary Enigma

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

I would take anything from a website with a clearly defined political/social agenda with a huge, huge grain of salt. There's no impartiality whatsoever if they've already decided they want to prove ID and simply start hunting out evidence to support it (while ignoring that which doesn't)

 

[chemi]

^ yes this is true, I am an atheist however I felt they referenced their information very well.

 

[footscrazy]

i don't think anyone else here was disputing the fact that genes do change over a life time. mutation occurs within both reproductive system as well as embryo

if genes don't change over a life time that's bad news for the theory of evolution

i'll just remind you what you are arguing about: is this mutation random combined with natural selection, or is this direct environmental action combined with natural selection

Your genes don't change for you to become better adapted to your environment over your lifetime. To bring back my previous example, which you didn't reply to, do you really think tanning is going to change your genes, leading you to produce darker babies? If so, you're wrong. However, your genes dictate the range in which you can tan. This range is set when your born and it doesn't change. If I'm exposed to more sun, I'll go the darker end of my range, but like someone else previously said, I'll never be black because it's not in my DNA and not matter how long I spend in the sun, in wont change this. Likewise, even if I get to the darkest end of my range, I'm no more likely to produce dark babies than if I'd stayed inside my whole life and never got a tan because my dna has remained the same.

In the case of neck rings being put on women to stretch their necks:

Our DNA determines how long or stretchable our necks are. Some people have differences in their DNA that make for a more elastic neck.

Imagine a member of this tribe for whom the rings don't work very well. Stretching her neck will not change her DNA to look more like someone's with a stretchable neck. Nor will it change her DNA to look like someone's with a longer neck.

Because this is the case, she won't pass down her stretched neck to her kids. But why over time might the tribe end up with more stretchable necks?

This is where natural selection comes in. People with a difference that helps with survival, have more kids. Those with differences that make survival less likely, have fewer kids.

Over time, you end up with a population that has the survival trait. It is important to note that natural selection uses differences that are already there.

Let's see how this might work in your example. Let's say women in the tribe who have the longest necks are the most desirable. This means that they are more likely to have kids.

As women with more elastic necks continue to have more children, this trait becomes more and more common. Soon, the tribe has more stretchable necks than other groups of people.

It looks like the stretching of the neck caused their DNA to change. But what really happened is women with a stretchable neck passed their genes on more successfully than their less stretchable sisters.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=167

 

[spok]

crankinit,

the scope of the concept of random mutation and natural selection is indeed mind boggling, but it's actually a lot simpler than the alternative.....it seems a like an over-simplification

random mutations aren't actually random at all, something environmental causes it. radiation, chemicals, a virus, a lack of some required variety of nutrition.....

it may or may not be beneficial to the life form, which through natural selection might see particular characteristics proliferate, but something environmental has still caused this mutation which just happened to turn out to be beneficial

i honestly think if it were all entirely random and not a specific adaptation there would be far more freakish animals with pointless bits and pieces hanging off them. things which aren't beneficial, but aren't a disadvantage either, just random and pointless

but i don't......those are the minority, just about all of the life forms on this planet are almost 'perfectly' tailored to their environment, no pointless bits at all

to me at least, this, combined with the fact that specific adaptations or conditions can be developed within an organisms life time are a fairly clear indication that these environment specific adaptations are being passed down genetically

 

[Crankinit]

Do you have any sources to back up the idea you're putting forward? Putting aside the argument itself for now, I'm curious about where it is you got this idea that lifeforms mutate as a direct reaction to our environment.

 

[spok]

i'm just pointing at the evidence mate, have a think about it, i believe you will come to the same conclusion

it doesn't matter if it's me pointing at that car saying it's blue, or if it's toyota pointing at that car saying it's blue..........the car is blue regardless of who's making the observation

 

[footscrazy]

If you understood anything at all about natural selection, you'd know there are no freakish animals because those random mutations were not adaptive therefore were not passed on. But obviously you don't know anything so I'd probably be better telling it to the brick wall. Though I see you have taken onboard sexual selection which you vehemently denied a few months back so maybe there is some hope.

If you really believe genes change due to environmental pressures - answer my question - how come amputees don't give birth to babies missing the same limb?

i honestly think if it were all entirely random and not a specific adaptation there would be far more freakish animals with pointless bits and pieces hanging off them. things which aren't beneficial, but aren't a disadvantage either, just random and pointless

There are many. A percentage (maybe even up to 99 % ) of human's DNA is 'junk dna' , it does nothing, but isn't disadvantageous, so it sticks around.

 

[hyroller]

well, if it really did work that way (lol).... it's probably just as well MDMA will be long dead by the time I get around to bearing children, if in fact I do.. hehe

As far as the matter reaches, though - I think one might have a natural predisposition to become addicted to the same chemicals as their predecessors... which is a good reason to avoid said substances if they have been abused by those related to them at some stage.

 

[spok]

crankinit,

further to my last post, not only are you going to get life taking forms completely irrelevant to their surroundings, you would actually have some life forms becoming progressively less suited to their environment. this might not necessarily mean they become extinct but rather are forced out of their environment by their own evolution......this just isn't how it works, evolution is a response to environment

i don’t know how significant advocates of mass random mutation imagine these random mutations to be, but one species isn’t going to give birth to something significantly different to it’s self. in a single generation the mutation would be so minuscule it would negate any evolutionary advantage, so basically all of these random life forms be their mutation beneficial, useless, or detrimental, would have an equal chance of success, none would have the distinct advantage. therefore by sheer chance, you would get life forms going in all directions

random mutation and natural selection also assumes that all the necessary natural selection factors are in play in the environment where this life form is developing, or literally all of these life forms. we’re talking about one of the biggest flukes in the history of the universe, even greater than the beginning of life it’s self on this planet

in short, mathematically it’s absolutely defunct, it’s about as probable as unicorns. it’s one absolutely 'huge' (i can't stress enough how large, massive) convenient assumption

the reality, or rather the current evidence, however would indicate that the same physical and chemical processes which enable a life form to develop specific adaptations within their life time is also facilitating a marginal change at the genetic level through repetition of that behaviour. which is why life forms are specifically adapted to their environment, with but a handful having these random mutations, be they a pointless physical feature or a disease

we just don’t know how this specific adaptation is taking place