Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Evolution in action

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    If it's maladaptive in another environment then it's not really with no negative tradeoffs.
    I invite you to name a mutation or genomic change that is adaptive in all environments. I would suggest staying away from comic book mutations, however.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      If it's maladaptive in another environment then it's not really with no negative tradeoffs. And if traits are generally useful but maladaptive in an environment I have no reason to interact with (like swimming in lava) then it's still objectively superior.
      How many mutations can you name that are 100% beneficial in every possible environment? Do environments ever change over time?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Outis View Post
        I invite you to name a mutation or genomic change that is adaptive in all environments. I would suggest staying away from comic book mutations, however.
        1. They don't need to be adaptive in all environments.
        2. They can be maladaptive in some environments and still be objectively better.

        Some objectively better adaptations: Intelligence. Opposable thumbs. Pistol shrimp's "stun gun". Spider Web. Flight. Electric eel electrocution. Amphibian respiration.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          How many mutations can you name that are 100% beneficial in every possible environment? Do environments ever change over time?
          They don't need to be 100% beneficial in every possible environment. Not being able to breathe underwater has no effect if I'm not underwater, but having the ability is still objectively better than not having it.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            1. They don't need to be adaptive in all environments.
            Incorrect. If there is an environment where a creature without that mutation has a better chance of survival than a creature with that mutation, the mutation then becomes maladaptive in that environment.

            Your claim of "objectively better" fails in that regard.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
              1. They don't need to be adaptive in all environments.
              2. They can be maladaptive in some environments and still be objectively better.
              This seems auto-refuting, depending on what you mean by "objective". If we understand (and you seem to) that any mutation can be maladaptive, and that beneficial or detrimental is entirely environment dependent, why muddy the waters with the meaningless word "objective".

              Some objectively better adaptations: Intelligence. Opposable thumbs. Pistol shrimp's "stun gun". Spider Web. Flight. Electric eel electrocution. Amphibian respiration.
              Nearly all of these characteristics are not possessed by nearly all organisms. You would think that if they were universally beneficial, nearly every organism would have them. But if "objective" does not mean relative, and it does not mean universal, what DOES it mean?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                Incorrect. If there is an environment where a creature without that mutation has a better chance of survival than a creature with that mutation, the mutation then becomes maladaptive in that environment.

                Your claim of "objectively better" fails in that regard.
                This ^^^

                We've only been over it a dozen times in this thread. There's no such thing as objectively superior or inferior mutations. Those are relative terms that only have meaning in the context of the effect they have in the creature's current environment.

                You'd think such a straightforward concept would be easy to grasp but apparently some people still don't get it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Outis View Post
                  Incorrect. If there is an environment where a creature without that mutation has a better chance of survival than a creature with that mutation, the mutation then becomes maladaptive in that environment.

                  Your claim of "objectively better" fails in that regard.
                  If I can breathe in liquid chocolate but not in air breathing air is still superior. Sure, I could find myself in a chocolate vat, but some environments are simply a non-issue and it's absurd to claim breathing chocolate is not objectively inferior to breathing air.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by phank View Post
                    Nearly all of these characteristics are not possessed by nearly all organisms. You would think that if they were universally beneficial, nearly every organism would have them. But if "objective" does not mean relative, and it does not mean universal, what DOES it mean?
                    I don't profess to know much about evolution and/or natural selection (I know extremely little of it in fact), but it seems that for your scenario of "nearly every organism" having a characteristic if said characteristic was 'universally beneficial' would be quite improbable, unless the "evolutionary process" was actually imbued with consciousness/rationality and decided to grant these characteristics to the majority of all organisms.

                    And there's also the fact that 'universally beneficial' (regardless of if DE actually means 'universal', when he writes 'objective') doesn't even remotely imply 'universally distributed'.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by phank View Post
                      This seems auto-refuting, depending on what you mean by "objective". If we understand (and you seem to) that any mutation can be maladaptive, and that beneficial or detrimental is entirely environment dependent, why muddy the waters with the meaningless word "objective".
                      Beneficial or detrimental is not entirely environment dependent. Furthermore, not all environments have equal value. Frequency and intensity should be taken into account.

                      Nearly all of these characteristics are not possessed by nearly all organisms. You would think that if they were universally beneficial, nearly every organism would have them.
                      That sounds like creationist talk. We both know how natural selection works, and how it doesn't. Traits that developed in particular species do not magically spread across the animal kingdom.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I don't profess to know much about evolution and/or natural selection (I know extremely little of it in fact), but it seems that for your scenario of "nearly every organism" having a characteristic if said characteristic was 'universally beneficial' would be quite improbable, unless the "evolutionary process" was actually imbued with consciousness/rationality and decided to grant these characteristics to the majority of all organisms.
                        There is a second way that this can happen. If the "universally beneficial" trait developed early in the history of life on this planet and was fundamental for the continuance of that life. I can only think of one trait that might qualify, the ADP-ATP intra-cellular energy transfer. DNA-RNA transcription occurs in all life that I am aware of, but with some (viruses), a separate host is needed to complete the process.

                        This does not "disprove" the existence of your proposed "consciousness/rationality," but it does provide one possible example.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Outis View Post
                          There is a second way that this can happen. If the "universally beneficial" trait developed early in the history of life on this planet and was fundamental for the continuance of that life. I can only think of one trait that might qualify, the ADP-ATP intra-cellular energy transfer. DNA-RNA transcription occurs in all life that I am aware of, but with some (viruses), a separate host is needed to complete the process.

                          This does not "disprove" the existence of your proposed "consciousness/rationality," but it does provide one possible example.
                          I was actually thinking of adding ",especially if said characteristic arose late in evolutionary history." after "would be quite improbable". Perhaps I should have gone with my intuition on this one.

                          And I'm not exactly proposing this "consciousness/rationality", or rather that the evolutionary process is imbued with "consciousness/rationality", I'm attempting a reductio ad absurdum, based on my (admittedly limited) experience that most evolutionists seem to vehemently deny that evolution and/or natural selection is anything close to a conscious or rational process, i.e that natural selection somehow "decides" which traits should be passed on to the next generation based on how well those traits are going to help the individual/group/species/whatever survive, rather than that traits are passed blindly from one generation to the next, without any consideration of whether or not these traits will actually be beneficial or not.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            I don't profess to know much about evolution and/or natural selection (I know extremely little of it in fact), but it seems that for your scenario of "nearly every organism" having a characteristic if said characteristic was 'universally beneficial' would be quite improbable, unless the "evolutionary process" was actually imbued with consciousness/rationality and decided to grant these characteristics to the majority of all organisms.

                            And there's also the fact that 'universally beneficial' (regardless of if DE actually means 'universal', when he writes 'objective') doesn't even remotely imply 'universally distributed'.
                            Yes, this definitely reflects a lack of understanding of evolution. If, say, intelligence were universally beneficial, it would be selected for and you'd find it everywhere. If smarter bacteria lived longer, you'd find smarter bacteria!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              Beneficial or detrimental is not entirely environment dependent.
                              Uh, they are DEFINED in terms of the environment.

                              Furthermore, not all environments have equal value. Frequency and intensity should be taken into account.
                              I have no idea how to parse this. What do you mean by value, or frequency or intensity?

                              That sounds like creationist talk. We both know how natural selection works, and how it doesn't. Traits that developed in particular species do not magically spread across the animal kingdom.
                              There is no magic, I agree. But you do see useful characteristics become widespread. Roots are helpful for plants, and motility is helpful for animals. So these are common, though not universal. There are plants without roots, and there are sessile animals, because there are so many environmental niches you wouldn't expect anything to be entirely universal.

                              As for "objectively beneficial", this is an oxymoron.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by phank View Post
                                Yes, this definitely reflects a lack of understanding of evolution. If, say, intelligence were universally beneficial, it would be selected for and you'd find it everywhere. If smarter bacteria lived longer, you'd find smarter bacteria!
                                durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X