Is Evolution Predictable? 298
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net is carrying a story about some research out of Rice University. They are exploring the possibility that we can predict the evolution of a species, given environmental factors." From the article: "Typically, the bacteria can continue to thrive when the temperature hits 73 degrees Celsius (163 degrees Fahrenheit). The experimental strain of bacteria contained a mutated version of a gene that, in the naturally occurring strain of the microbe, produces a protein that made existence possible. They then put these mutant strains in environments where the temperature rose slowly but steadily, and studied how different generations coped with the changing temperature. In the breeding that followed, millions of new mutations of the gene in question were produced, but only about 700 of those variants replicated some of the functionality of the naturally occurring gene."
Kidding, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't need to perform their silly experiments to come up with this hypothesis. It's built in to the basic nature of the idea.
Now, as for the article... The
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2)
Not really. It's more like this...
Random mutations occur all the time and whilst most of them result in serious deformation or death, some can offer advantages. In some cases these advantages are
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2)
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2)
Sure they do. For example, humans are poorly suited for sitting down all day typing, using a mouse and staring at a hundred-watt light bulb some people call display, as this simultanously ruins their back, eyes and cardiovascular system and runs a risk of severe social disorders. Nor are we really suited for controlling tons of metal going at 80 km/h, as numerous accidents each year prove. Despite all this we see
Re:Evolution isn't just adapting to environment (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it isn't just that... (Well if you include evolving because other species are eating you, but that could be lumped into 'environment')
It is that mutations are random and often times ill suited for their environment, but it is only a matter of chance that something survives to pass on its genes. Whether it is not being eaten into extinction by another species, not over populating until you destroy existing resources and then you go extinct, not dying because of an ice age, or not being wiped out by a meteor.
One can say... Well that was the environment that killed off those species... Well it isn't because that the species evolved to adapt to the environment, but only those whose random mutations made them more suited for the environment survived.
As in... If you put a million grizzly bear in the polar region none of them are going to spontaneously evolve his fur white more like a polar bear because that was the best choice.
However, if any of those bears happened to spontaneously mutate into where their hair turned white making them better hunters so that the seals couldn't see them. Then those species may actually do better than there brown counterparts and may survive in times of hardship where as the browns die out.
What I am trying to say is that any mutation that doesn't kill off the species will continue in the species, but it is more probable that mutations that allow a species to survive will get passed on.
Take our appendix for example... What the hell does that do?
It may or may not have had some purpose in the past, but we simply don't evolve it away because it doesn't kill us so we pass it on to the next generation.
Basically, evolution isn't about mutating into the best possible creature for the environment, but rather we mutate constantly and the mutations that kill us don't get passed on.
Now that leads to the question "What really causes DNA mutations?"
Chances are it could be do to higher radiation events during magnetic pole reversals or gamma ray bursts where the radiation is so high that many species die of cancer and health problems, but those who do survive have random mutations. After that... Any mutation that doesn't kill the species off due to environmental factors passes those genes on.
Re:Evolution isn't just adapting to environment (Score:5, Informative)
Likewise, it's worth noting that very often disparate elements are linked. The appendix itself might not be a good thing, but it's developmentally linked to or even just very close to something on the genome that is hard or dangerous to tinker with. And thus, it has been left alone since tinkering with that area of the genome breaks something else important.
Re:Evolution isn't just adapting to environment (Score:4, Informative)
Chances are it could be do to higher radiation events during magnetic pole reversals or gamma ray bursts where the radiation is so high that many species die of cancer and health problems, but those who do survive have random mutations. After that... Any mutation that doesn't kill the species off due to environmental factors passes those genes on.
Not bad up until this point.
For one thing, most evolution has less to do with mutations, and more to do with subtle variations between members of a species. So with the case of fur color in mammals, you have multiple genes that contribute to the quantity of melanin in hair. Individuals with combinations ideally suited to the environment are more successful than others.
Secondly, we know many of the actions for how mutations happen at the biochemical level. Most mutations occur because of errors in DNA replication and repair. Another class of mutations occurs because DNA can fold back on its self under certain conditions, or become attached to other strands. These mutations occur all the time and with a frequency stable enough that we can use them as timers to estimate the geologic time that has elapsed since Kodiak bears and Polar bears shared a common ancestor.
Re:Evolution isn't just adapting to environment (Score:3)
Re:Evolution isn't just adapting to environment (Score:2)
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyways, Darwin's theory doesn't really make any quantitative predictions. These guys are doing the basic science experiments
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2)
This experiment is just
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2)
They only did that twice.
If the question was 'Will they evolve?' then yes, it was done many, many times.
Evolution was not predicted, but observed (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if in some cases the expected outcome is deterministic, we don't know how really works, see folding@home, that stuff is really computationally expensive. We would need to know the folding behavior of all possible protein and then a fast, effective way to model the inter
Re:Evolution was not predicted, but observed (Score:2)
Pretending I know NOTHING about spheres rotating, revolving, etc, and nothing about circles travelling across the sky...
I watch as a color-changing (red/orange/yellow/white) circle makes its way over the horizon. After ~12 hours, it gets to the other horizon and sinks the same way.
I'm going to be pretty sure it could happen again.
I watch it happen again the next day. I'm going to be pretty sure it happens repeatedly, but no idea how often it really happens.
I watch it sever
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
The effects of more novel mutations, though, are going to be much less predictable for the reasons you give.
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2)
They didn't say that. What they said was that 700 or so regained the same _functionality_. That's not the same thing as the same exact mutations happening to redo what was undone, or all of them being the same solution.
Re:In an additional test (OT) (Score:2)
Do we get to see the results of that research? http://www.bachelorette.com/fununfortwo.html [bachelorette.com]
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2)
If they want to PROVE 'evolution is predictable', they need more than 2 reps. That could SO easily be coincidence. It appears to be reproduceable so far, but that's not actually proven until they do more reps AND others do, too. Others aren't going to bother if it appears their experiment was sloppy (they don't bother to follow
Re:Kidding, right? (Score:2, Interesting)
The summary of the research is pretty slim, but if we assume the reporter got it right (dangerous, I know):
If they replicated this twice, with the same dominant mutation, and the same derivatives, and the same two successful derivatives, then I don't think we need to wait until they complete 1000
Re:You are obviously not a scientist (Score:3, Interesting)
He's from spain (Score:5, Informative)
> The experimental strain of bacteria contained a mutated version of
> a gene that, in the naturally occurring strain of the microbe,
> produces a protein that made existence possible.
That should read:
The experimental strain of bacteria contained a mutated version of a gene that, in the naturally occurring strain of that gene, produces a protein that made existence in these temperatures possible.
So, in short, they disabled the microbes heat resistence, and saw if the buggers could grow it back.
Re:He's from spain (Score:4, Funny)
survival (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:survival (Score:3, Insightful)
Try an environment a bit more complex (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the Hawaiian islands then? (Score:2, Informative)
And if they used a more realistic environment and got results that weren't so clear, then people would argue that they should have done something simpler where they could control all the variables. The answer is to use both approaches, but not necessarily in the same study.
There was an interesting paper on that touched on the same issues using a 'natural experiment'. They looked at a group of spiders that colonized the Hawaiian islands. Each island contains a collection of the same ecotypes of these spide
Re:Try an environment a bit more complex (Score:2)
You can improve understanding of weather if you have a box where you can make rai
What is WITH headlines like that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is WITH headlines like that? (Score:2, Insightful)
These issues are not specific only to this type of research. I am a scientist myself (actually, I am from Rice Univers
What the article doesn't mention... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we guess the numbers from the lottery? Maybe, says preliminar research I just did.
Evolution works by having random variations and mutations based on what is physically possible and better adapted to the environment.
You can never guess which mutation will be best fitting though. We can guess some mutations that might work somewhat better, but nature will surprise you with something you never thought of.
Let's not imagine we're that smart, we still barely know the details about our own species let alone make guesses for the entire nature.
But of course: if we put a cat and a catfish in deep water I think it's obvious which one the natural selection will prefer.
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
Evolution works by having random variations and mutations based on what is physically possible and better adapted to the environment.
I think it's a bad analogy. Numbers from the lottery are trully random. Evolution is based on random mutations, but the one mutations that will stay can be predicted, although we are unable to do so due to our lack of informations and knowledge.
Example. Imagine than us, the humans, more or l
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
Guess what, mutations are also truly random. They really are. I don't deny that many organisms have "smart" adapation mechanisms that can take effect even in the same generation, but that's no mutation.
The number of mutations possible in an organism like a cell are p
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
I know, thanks alot, but on a global scale, it's stochastic, that's the point. Alright let me clear my thought. Mutations are random, but since they happen in billions of individuals, you can theorically figure them out statistically. As for lottery numbers, they get sorted out only once (well, that's if you play only once). The reason why you can't tell which will come out is that they are all as likely to come out, and can come out only once, as opposed to havi
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
How many people have dinosaurs seen? Before creatures evolved to breath air and walk out of the water, the prehistoric fish: how many tigers have they seen?
You have a point about very likely and probably mutations having stochastic nature (for example dolphins have evolved back to the shape of a fish but are not fish), but to think this is all is very misleading. Nature doesn't just get to pick from what's layi
Evolution not so random (Score:2)
Even though mutations are random, its results are not.
That's what the scientists in TFA are investigating.
Let's review the experiment, I'll show you why it's not that random.
You take a few million bacteria.
You zap the bug's ability to withstand heat and the you heat them up.
Evolution says they will gain the ability to withstand heat again.
However, there are certain mechanisms that allow the critters to survive.
Let's assume from now on that mutations give a beneficial or
Evolution predictable (Score:2)
Limits to Adaptation (Score:2)
Darwin was wrong! (Score:2, Interesting)
Fittest suggests that you must be 'more' something. Stronger, faster, smarter,
Re:Darwin was wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Darwin was wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Darwin was wrong! (Score:2)
In strict etmylogical terms 'fittest' would be that which fits it's environment the best, ie: most sustainable, as you have described.
A weaker/smaller variation of a species could easily be the most fit for an environment if by being so it was able to reproduce more often or more effe
Re:Darwin was wrong! (Score:2)
Seems at first to be a silly question but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you had a very good understanding for example of a given gene and its mutations in an organism throughout history and in different evironments, you ought to be able to predict something of how it would act if inserted into another organism, and if it is a very successful gene it may have a great impact on "evolution". But it is probably 99% fantasy if you think those picture books illustrating "future creatures" are going to be what will come to pass.
The only meaningful answer to this question is, if you have full control over the environment can you direct evolution of an organism to develop in your desired direction. Of course this is possible, happens every day in the lab. But once you get away from talking about the evolution of say a given gene, and start talking about what a creature looks like, I think this is beyond our current knowledge though possibly not out of reach if we had far more powerful, half-sentient computers handling most of it. We are talking more about genetic engineering though now, not evolution. Possibly if we had a way to describe biomes and evolutionary stresses on organisms it might be possible to predict things like giraffes' necks elongating. Deducing the structure of an eye or a human's gait would seem to be far more difficult.
This is a beautiful experiment (Score:2)
Popular Media Reporting On Real Science (Score:4, Interesting)
We've been working at predicting evolution and using evolutionary results to explain why animals have certain characteristics for quite some time. c.f. Evolutionary Game Theory [wikipedia.org], Behavioral Ecology [wikipedia.org], Adaptive Dynamics, etc. Of course these are mostly all theoretical results. The guys from TFA are doing experimental research that happens to verify the theories, which is in itself pretty cool - it's hard to do evolutionary experiments for obvious reasons. Using bacteria isn't a particularly new idea, but modern technology is enabling more sophisticated and precise experiments.
Farmers have know this for millenia.... selection (Score:2)
Natural environment selection is just one form of selection. But the farmer can also be the "environment" and force a certain selection. He can select for milk-producing capacity in dairy cows or goats. He can select for bulkiness in beef cattle or hogs. He c
Is Evolution predictable? (Score:2)
But hell, did ANYONE expect that they'll beat the aliens with Head & Shoulders? I totally didn't see that coming. But it was lame nonetheless.
We're talking about the movie, right, guys?
Re: (Score:2)
Armchair evolutional biologist here... (Score:2)
Any Star Trek Fan knows (Score:2)
NO wait, in Voyager Janeway and Paris go thru evolvo-tronic rays and ends up a slug.
I suppose that between the '60s and the '90s, our notion of evolution has devolved.
*cough* (Score:2)
*/cough*
Predict WHAT? (Score:2)
> environmental factors.
That it will occur: definitely, and in most cases too trvial to mention.
That the species will successfully adapt to a specific new and controlled environment, and survive: You can get good odds on it, until the "OOPS, we turned up the heat too much for that strain" happens.
That a given species will survive environmental changes when those changes are unpredictable in themselves: Not just no, but HELL no.
The
Evolution from Single Cell to Multi-Cell (Score:2)
What do other slashdotters think of this?
Yes (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait, maybe, by that time, our Sun will be white dwarf.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:4, Insightful)
Darwin stated that the mutations were RANDOM and that those that led to better survivors would out live those without.
E.g., if my kids can cope with the sun better than your kids then there is a chance they won't die off from cancer. If all their kids and grandkids and so on, I'd have a family tree that tends to live longer and reproduce more, etc.
It has nothing to do with the mutations being guided.
Tom
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying one experiment is the straw that breaks Darwin's hypothesis. I of course observe the survival of the fittest like everyone else. I'm just saying it is an interesti
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
Big deal. That doesn't fly in the face of Darwinism.
That the same mutation eventually occurred twice given a limited genome doesn't surprise me.
Tom
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
Darwin states survival of the fitest.
This experiment didn't say the ideal mutation was the ONLY mutation that occurred.
That the same mutation occurred is particularly interesting but you also have to look at the amount of variation available. I mean, just how long is the DNA of a microbe anyways? Laws of probability state that if the available mutation pool is small enough you should see a good overlap.
It's like putting six playing cards in a bag a
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
What is means is that mutations are not directly correlated with anything having to do with functional needs. Chemical bonds like DNA don't "know" anything about the larger functional structure they are a part of, and they don't act like they do. And this experiment doesn't sho
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
millions:700
dead:live
So something like 99.9999% of mutations were useless.
They could have done the same experiment with
a) increasing acidity
b) increasing salinity
c) longer periods of starvation
And the odds are probably 99.9999% of the mutations would be useless for surviving those environments (including the nifty "survive in heat" mutation which would be useless in a saline environment).
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a remarkably stupid objection, confusing randomness with unpredictability. If random events were completely unpredictable, then casinos would not make money. The experiment describes exactly the kind of conditions--very large numbers of bacteria--in which one can make predictions about the outcome.
However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking.
Considering that it has now been shown by genetic sequencing that all of the differences among species can be attributed to the kinds of genetic changes that have been shown to arise by mutation--perhaps the most dramatic example in the history of science of the discovery of evidence confirming a theory--this is also pretty foolish.
The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote....
Ah, the sine qua non of the Creationist/ID crackpot: the quotes taken out of context. The fact that they always seem to regard this as a particular telling point (note that the poster saved it for last, apparently under the delusion that it is some sort of haymaker of argumentation) is illustrative of how little they understand science. I suppose that this sort of textual hair-splitting must make some kind of sense in the context of Biblical interpretation. But science is based on evidence, not the words of the prophets.
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
More like the winning hand in a poker game of a billion players being the same several times in a row: "Oh my god, the winning hand is a royal flush once again!!!! The game must be
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
Scientist: "Hm, that's strange. Let's see if this can be reproduced by anyone else. If so, we can come up with a theory and some experiments later."
Creationist: "OMG! Look! It's God
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
That fact that you don't know what it is suggests that you pulled it off of some creationist/ID list of "quotes that show evolution is bogus." Shouldn't that make YOU suspicious?
"The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question."
While this is true, you are usi
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11485 [worldmag.com]
All I had to do was copy and paste one phrase into google with quotes.
So plagiarism is OK with Christians??? (Score:2)
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
I must question your integrity.
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
Absolutely. The pattern is that adaptations that are good for survival and reproduction in the prevailing environment are successful and will proliferate within a population, w
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:5, Insightful)
But he hasn't shown this at all. Your argument doesn't even make sense: life could not exist without blood clotting? This will come as a huge surprise to bacteria! Sea cucumbers will all die in shock at the news! Inability to process the corrosive poison oxygen: oh noes! Yeast is a miracle!
Fact is, blood clotting has turned out to be as embarrasing an example for Behe as all the rest: there has in fact been extensive work done to figure out how blood clotting evolved.
And the larger point is even if we didn't have good leads on how something evolved, historically, simply saying "I don't see how it could have" is not a good argument: it's merely incredulity, not a demonstration of impossibility.
This is the reason Behe's arguments are not taken seriously. ID theorists, of course, would have you believe that it's because of a giant conspiracy or dogma. It couldn't POSSIBLY be because the arguments of ID proponents are incorrect. Merely being able to make arguments against evolution proves that these arguments are right and evolution is just a fad!
"However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking."
This is always fascinating to me. People like you claim that evolution is flawed... but when you actually start talking about it, you imply that you don't even understand what it is.
This is a REALLY key point to grasp. Evolution is cladistically conservative. What that means is that is one life form does not "turn into" another. Everything that descends from bacteria will still be rightly classed as bacteria (that is, everything that set bacteria apart from all other life will still set all its descendants apart), just like we humands are still eukaryotes, still tetrapods, still eutherians, still apes, and so on.
The evidence for speciation is not only solid, but has been observed in nature. The mechanisms, despite what ID theorists would have you believe, are not even mysterious. Speciation at base simply involves two population genetically drifting away from each other to the point where they can no longer interbreed. For some species we even know how this happens down to the point by point mutation (like in abalone, where the "lock/key" mechanism of sperm and eggs is constantly changing, often leaving islands of incompatibility where certain populations are stranded off of from others).
"We know that evolution can help an organism adapt... and, as the article shows, we are beginning to show that organisms do this in accordance to a pattern or (dare I say) a design."
Did you even READ the article? That's not what it shows at all. Where in the article are you finding this? Even patterns of mutation is not the same thing as design: mutation is a physical process with its own observable constraints and quirks.
"We still do know that organisms evolve into new species. And, dare I say, I doubt we ever will. The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the ID attempt to bring about a paradigm shift in science: good luck. Seriously! The crux of ID is that of bias in observation of the natural wor
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
1: The core of evolution is not about which species begat another species, but about collections of species as cousins and siblings. We have a family tree of tens of thousands of species catalogued and identified. We can sort these species into groups by morphology, physiology, and similarities in DNA. And what we get is a pattern that looks a heck of a lot
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig (Score:2)
Please mod this post down for plagarism. (Score:2)
Re:Just throwing this out there (Score:2, Funny)
Define "fundamentalist" (Score:2, Offtopic)
By fundamentalist, do you mean one who adheres to a traditional Christian lifestyle? Obeys various scriptural commandments? Fundamentalist is an inherently loaded term, would you compare a Christian "fundamentalist" to, say, a member of Al-Qaeda, often erroneously referred to as a Muslim "fundamentalist"?
I, for example, am a Mormon, which fits me under the group of Christianity. I am a "fundamentalist" in that I ho
Re:Define "fundamentalist" (Score:2)
Right because the alcohol & caffeine avoidance, wacky underwear, forced missionary work, and dodgy tablet story is perfectly 100% sane. Not worse than most extremist religions but to claim there isn't craziness with the more extreme elements of the religious expereince shows how out of touch you really are.
Re:Define "fundamentalist" (Score:2)
"Extremist religion" means people that kill themselves and a lot of others. It does not mean people who wear funny underwear. Please maintain some sense of proportion.
If someone believes some
Re:Define "fundamentalist" (Score:2)
Sure. Now. How about in the 1920s when Scopes went on trial? Did you "innerrant scripture" guide you guys to the facts of evolution? No of course not. Yours is just another religion that changes its way as the times change. You can no longer fight it, just like the Catholics had to accept the heliocentric model of the universe.
Funny how the "great scriptures" are full of obviously wrong observations
Re:Define "fundamentalist" (Score:2)
Re:Just throwing this out there (Score:2)
Most "fundamentalist christians" would define micro-evolution as minor evolutionary changes within a species and macro-evolution as major inter-species changes (the "how did we evolve from
This is where Christians get hung up on the education of evolution -- not as a biological fact, but as the origin of life. Of course, nobody has yet to prove that it is, it is simply taken as th
Re:you need information (Score:4, Insightful)
Well no, not really. Until them, we didn't know that the basic amino acids will form under some fairly pedestrian chemical conditions. Miller and Urey DIDN'T sit down and build them: they instead set up an environmental condition and they came about by themselves. That's only a tiny piece of the picture in the field of abiogenesis, but it was most definately a fascinating surprise that changed the way we thought about organic molecules.
"What it dosen't accout for it the information."
This has become the latest creationist trope, but it's complete nonsense.
Define "information" any way you like, and evolution produces it. It's mathetically demonstrable, we do it all the time in practice when we use genetic algorithms, and we observe it in nature. Generating new information is a BASIC function of the evolutionary process (depending on how you define information, it's either random mutation ITSELF, or the outcome of natural selection). Heck, the article here describes it happening. It might not phrase it in the language of information, but when the demands of an environmental pressure is imprinted onto a gene pool, that's an information increase in the gene pool (information about the environment).
The claim that evolution cannot produce information is a garbled version of the arguments of William Dembski, whose arguments have been roundly debunked too many times to count.
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/king-of-bad-
"Once DNA would be formed out of the acids it has to code for orgenelles and cell walls and whatever else."
Well, eventually, but almost certainly not right away. You're imagining that early life would immediately need to become like life today. Almost certainly, that amount of complex cell structure was not there at the beginning. Single celled life ruled the world far longer than the multicelluar life and complex single-celled structures we have today.
"Even the scientists that support Evolution are having a hard time coming up with an explination with where the information came from, not just the medium it is carried on."
As I said, no. Information is trivial. What you are probably referring to is that we don't know how specifically early life arose, largely because we just don't have much to go on to direct us in one direction or another. But like most things in science, we're working on it, and fascinating discoveries and insights happen almost every other month.
Re:you need information (Score:2)
Hey, i don't know about you but _my_ evolutionary process uses C++ functions!
(Of course that means that i have to worry about developing a memory leak as i get older...)
Re:you need information (Score:2)
Re:you need information (Score:2)
Re:you need information (Score:2)
Re:you need information (Score:2)
Re:you need information (Score:2)
Information is introduced via mutations. It is filtered via selection. Filtering information does not add information. It may increase its quality, but not its quantity.
No, it means that the genetic information contained in the non-breeding half is lost when that half dies off, except the parts that were also
Re:you need information (Score:2)
Is there a difference?
Suppose you are interested in making chili. As you probably know, there are any number of variations that can be made on a basic recipe of a spice cabinet, chili powder, tomatoes, pork, chili peppers and beer. Some work, some don't work. The secret to making good chile is to systematically vary your style, until you hit
Re:you need information (Score:2)
Re:Natural vs. sexual selection (Score:2)
Ugly people don't have any less kids that "attractive" people. Example : Marilyn Monroe : 0 kids. Osama bin Laden : at least 24.
And it all comes down to how many kids you get in the end, not how often or how easily you get laid.
Re:Natural vs. sexual selection (Score:2)
Osama's dad was a billionaire. That helps somewhat in the "attractivenes" stakes. And though he's not my type, I wouldn't say he was ugly. [proost.dk]
Re:prediction (Score:2)
No, because we do not evolve anymore since the advent of agriculture (or so).
Re:prediction (Score:2)
Oh yeah, turns out you're right [wikinews.org]. Funny, like two years ago, the philosophy teacher said that we were not evolving anymore. Back then I said it was bullshit, then I read in a scientifical magazine (Science & Vie) that it was so. Now we just found out it's wrong.
Awesome, I was wrong two years ago by claiming what's considered true now, and I am wrong now for claiming what was considered true up to 3 months ago. Thanks for making me update the truth.
Re:It's not mutation that drives evolution (Score:2)
(for the non-creationists), this code is probably no so much as complex as just dis-organized....
I mean, we have code for parts that are no longer needed (appendix?). All sorts of codes for reflexes, etc that we no longer need. And even worse, there probably aren't any comments!!!
If we could read DNA like a program (e.g. truly understand it), we probably would find that it was worse than the equivalent of 100 drunk u