• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Why Plants???

Yes, death is a frequent misunderstanding of the term 'water intoxication'
 
vecktor said:
no as I said there is currently no pressure for the appendix to disappear completely so it doesn't. the appendix is a throw back,which costs next to nothing so there is next to no selection pressure.
NO SELECTION PRESSURE = NO EVOLUTION
Click to expand...

Exactly, case in point. Not all species undergo enough selection pressure for the usage of small amounts of energy to be relevant. The energy argument is simplistic and does not account for all of natural selection. I'm not going to argue this forever because its clear to me that no one can provide a universal mechanism becuase no such mechanism exists.

Just because a trait puts a cross section of the population at a disatvantage that is no garuntee that it will be selected out. There are many factors at play in evolution, randomness is one of them, sometimes odd shit makes it through the selection process to saturate the gene pool. Once that happens it is highly unlikely that it will ever disapear (unless the odd mutant individuals that lack said trait are both at a huge atvantage over everyone else and that the lack of the trait can be passed on succesfully). I rest my case, banter on.
 
theWorldWithin said:
Exactly, case in point. Not all species undergo enough selection pressure for the usage of small amounts of energy to be relevant. The energy argument is simplistic and does not account for all of natural selection. I'm not going to argue this forever because its clear to me that no one can provide a universal mechanism becuase no such mechanism exists.

Just because a trait puts a cross section of the population at a disatvantage that is no garuntee that it will be selected out. There are many factors at play in evolution, randomness is one of them, sometimes odd shit makes it through the selection process to saturate the gene pool. Once that happens it is highly unlikely that it will ever disapear (unless the odd mutant individuals that lack said trait are both at a huge atvantage over everyone else and that the lack of the trait can be passed on succesfully). I rest my case, banter on.
Click to expand...

Saturation of the gene pool is irrelevant, and I think that's where you're getting hung up. There's a little thing called mutation that makes it irrelevant. Eventually- and this may take several hundred thousand years- a mutation will occur that either results in a useless feature becoming less energy expensive, useful or absent altogether.

This will result in a benefit to those that have this mutation, and that mutation will be passed on barring unforeseen circumstances- like getting eaten by a mutant eagle.

Even still, eventually another mutation will occur that that results in some new benefit.

But like it's been mentioned, humans may well be outside of the normal evolutionary framework (though that seems too easy to me), and second, the appendix is not absent of any benefits. It has benefits for the human race, and so it won't be removed unless something unlikely occurs.
 
Certianly I understand the concept of mutation but I think a lot of evolutionists follow a basic idea to its logical extreme. Just because an individual expresses a mutation, for example an even more minute appendix, does not mean that:

1. that individual will live to maturity
2. that individual will reporduce
3. if it does reproduce that said mutation will be inherited by its offspring and expressed in a similar manner
4. or that said mutation would offer an measurable atvantage which would result in greater survivability or mating preference.

If the gene pool is saturated a single mutant individual's abnormal genetics would more than likely be breed out of its offspring because they would likely mate with all individuals not carrying the mutation (unless of course the mutation happens to also be a very dominant gene). So ultimately the probability of a mutant BREEDING OUT a trait that has saturated the gene pool is next to nil. Its hard enough to breed something in with a clear atvantage let alone eliminate something through a dodgy mechanism with no outwardly visible atvantage to survival or reproductive health. Also it is important to remember that because population growth is exponential the examples found in bacteria that breed at incredible rates certainly do not scale to the mamalian model of natural selection. Not to mention very minor changes in energy consumption can have a profound effect on the survivability of a single cellular organism but an entirely negligable one on complex multi cellular life such as mamals.
 
1. Already covered.
2. Not reproducing is much less likely than reproducing if #1 is satisfied.
3. there's a 25-50% chance that it'll be passed on. Those odds should be satisfactory.
4. As long as it allows resources to be better spent, then an advantage is conferred and having more available resources (better health) results in higher mating success.

There's really good research into non-human animals and plant for #4, actually.

So ultimately the probability of a mutant BREEDING OUT a trait that has saturated the gene pool is next to nil.
Click to expand...

You're still thinking in the short term. In the long term, this benefit will eventually overtake the weaker genetics. Just look at the research on the subject, we see similar things happening all the time. IIRC, something similar was claimed to be the reason we ended up beating out the other homo species.

Also it is important to remember that because population growth is exponential the examples found in bacteria that breed at incredible rates certainly do not scale to the mamalian model of natural selection. Not to mention very minor changes in energy consumption can have a profound effect on the survivability of a single cellular organism but an entirely negligable one on complex multi cellular life such as mamals.
Click to expand...

That's all untrue. the only difference is in length of generation.

It's really easy to find research saying that everything I and others have said here is true. All you're pointing out is that evolution isn't very effective in the short term. Alright, that's a given. We're talking about millions to hundreds of millions of years to billions of years and tens of billions of years.

Sure, individual mutations may be lost- but with enough time, another one will occur. And if that one is lost, another one will occur.

Actually- in all likelihood, assuming a large enough population, there will be multiple beneficial mutations at any one time, and a much larger number of worse mutations. Most of these won't make a big difference- some will, and they'll get pushed on.
 
fastandbulbous said:
There's only been life on Earth for about 4 billion years - enthusiasm getting the better of you eh? ;)
Click to expand...

No, I'm well aware. It wasn't a comment on how long evolutionary processes were in place and how long it took to get here, but on how long it could take for something to happen.

Realistically though, it will not take 10 billion years for one useful mutation to occur, though it's certainly possible a highly successful species might last that long.

If we hadn't the penchant for playing backwoods Midas- everything he touches turns to shit- I might have thought we would have been capable of such a feat. Colonizing other stars and such.

Alas, I doubt we'll manage to colonize, but we will certainly fuck up this planet and bring about our own demise.
 
Well in 4 billion years we've gon from an amino acid soup, through unicellular, multicwellular then true differentiated organisms (with organs etc) to a sentient life form, so in 10 billion years who knows what you'd end up with - way beyond anything we could speculate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top