Alate_One
Well-known member
Agreed but, messages being sent in a cell isn't evolution.
NIH: 100M Years to Change a Binding Site
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Agreed but, messages being sent in a cell isn't evolution.
You're right as long as DNA doesn't need to send messages in the cell.
Alate_One
Well-known member
DNA doesn't send messages itself. DNA is the storehouse of information to make proteins as well as a series of signposts as to when and where to use said information. Messages are sent using RNA polymerase, mRNA as well as other proteins and other non-translated RNAs.
But none of this has anything directly to do with evolution. Evolution involves the passing on of DNA through reproduction to offspring and the observation that the DNA content of a population of organisms changes over time.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Wouldn't a larger population size tend to make it take longer for a single change to spread through the entire population?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Depends on the level of selection for the characteristic and how many offspring the organism produces. Evolution is probably going to be faster in an r selected species than a K selected species.
Assuming I am recalling correctly from the paper, the change in question (the 100M year change) was one of the more difficult that could be envisioned. This was because it was assumed to be in two steps with the first having negative fitness before a second change that depended on the first that would give the fitness benefit.
Sounds like evolution works even where it cannot. :dizzy:
It just does. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why is it easier to believe that your god created the earth according to Genesis but left all the evidence suggesting otherwise?
And do not recall anything suggesting that "evolution works even where it cannot". Setting up another Stripe strawman?
:rotfl:
It's pretty simple to understand. The real question is - why do you believe it?
It isn't.
Uhm .. evolution is supposed to work by selection for traits that confer an advantage. But it sounds like it can work even when a trait confers a disadvantage. Sounds to me like it works even when it shouldn't. :idunno:
It's a simple question .. maybe there's a simple explanation.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I've explained to you before, selection (positive selection) is only one driver of evolution, there are many others that do not require a fitness advantage. (genetic drift, sexual selection, migration/gene flow)
Lacking a fitness advantage or having negative fitness makes a change *much* less likely to occur. We are mostly talking about a negative change that is required for a positive change to occur (contingency), it's very difficult for that to happen in evolution. However, it CAN happen. It depends on the level of fitness cost that is involved plus random factors in the population. Those random factors are MORE likely to change allele frequencies in a small population.
See, you still want so much flexibility.
Not like the Bible. Things are set in stone.
Well except the things that are set in real stone don't match the Bible stories. No matter. What god wrote is true.
Well, except it was really written by men, and we don't have the original manuscripts.
No matter.
No, I don't think you have. :idunno:
Which is exactly the same as selection for fitness, if the story requires.
Which is exactly the same as selection for fitness, if the story requires.
Which is exactly the same as genetic drift, just with more diversity.
Changes occur for real and repeatable reasons. They happen quickly. There is absolutely no need to postulate a slow and gradual process to account for any known change in a population's general morphology.
What changes are you talking about here?
The real changes that have been observed. :thumb:
Alate_One
Well-known member
It isn't the same. One is relatively predictable given a particular environment, the other is not.
No, it isn't. It's an entirely different mechanism. Unless you're just claiming that any change in allele frequency is the same thing.
Back to your DNA fairies again. Barbarian and I already showed you that the Luria-Delbruck experiment shows that mutations are NOT caused by the environment, that they are random.
The experiment is in nearly every biology textbook yet you continue to refuse to learn anything about it.
What changes, specifically?
Same net result. The evolutionist explanation just shifts around to suit the story.
How is it any different .. other than there being more diversity available in the gene pool?
And you are most certainly ignoring the very reasonable counter-explanation - again.
Go to any atheist forum, pretend to be a creationist and demand evidence for evolution. You'll get a truckload. :up:
You brought the issue up. Please back it up. Thanks
You're welcome.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Science changes to match the evidence. The central idea of Evolution hasn't changed, however.
Migration is moving around of genes from elsewhere. Genetic drift is the LOSS of alleles by random factors due to the death of the holders. Genetic Drift is more common in small populations.
No. Your explanation isn't reasonable. I watched the video you posted, the person you have chosen to believe doesn't know what he is talking about.
You're welcome.
Fundy quote mining, even on TOL!
- Status