Results 101 to 125 of 250
-
04-01-2014, 05:04 PM #101
-
04-01-2014, 05:47 PM #102Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Location
- mcflattown
- Posts
- 724
Evolution doesn't give a fuck how you feel when you die.
-
04-01-2014, 06:20 PM #103
-
04-01-2014, 06:45 PM #104Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Posts
- 2,835
The very process of natural selection presupposes that various traits will arise (e.g., via mutation). Those that provide an advantage are more likely to be passed on. Those that provide a disadvantage will, over time, be less likely to be passed on. Traits that offer neither advantage nor disadvantage may or may not stick around. They may stick around because they are associated with a genetic sequence that offers an entirely different evolutionary advantage. They may be the result of "junk DNA" that by sheer accident becomes common among the population. Lots of ways that a trait may survive over multiple generations without having any survival correlation at all.
-
04-01-2014, 06:46 PM #105Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Posts
- 2,835
-
04-01-2014, 07:03 PM #106Hugh Conway Guest
-
04-01-2014, 07:06 PM #107
Vestigiality may be the word some of you are seeking when referring to these "traits"
Ever wonder why you have a tailbone but no tail?
Or did I completely miss the point here?
-
04-01-2014, 07:51 PM #108telemarking is stupid.
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- xanadu
- Posts
- 588
Vestigial generally refers to "outdated" adaptions (your tail/bone scenario) - traits that once faced selective pressure but no longer do face pressure in either direction (selected for or against). There's also exaptation, where traits are adapted (selected for) for one purpose at some previous point and now serve another - the classic example being the development of feathers for insulation/warmth which then become useful for flight as well (at least we think this is the case at the moment). "Adaptive" in a technical sense means that a trait that was produced by natural selection for its current function. Your example and the one in this paragraph are both cases of non-adaptive traits.
The point I was trying to make is that it is not correct to say all traits (qualities that are inherited through gene replication) are a result of selective pressure (natural selection). "All traits are a result of evolution" does not mean "all traits are the result of some mechanism which made them advantageous." The latter is a common misconception of evolutionary theory, while the former is one of its main tenets. People tend to use the concepts "evolution" and "natural selection" interchangeably, and they don't refer to the same thing (scientifically speaking).
edit, DMT => Darwin? I need a drink...Last edited by bigAK; 04-01-2014 at 08:06 PM.
-
04-01-2014, 08:00 PM #109
I don't buy the tenant, "ALL traits are the result of evolution". certainly most, but not all.
We might assume that statement is inherent of the science of evolution, but examples like DMT might help prove various arguments to the contrary.
We see the many arguments with questionable science as to our origin and purpose, but none from "unquestionable" science.
It seems science has lost any sense of spirit?Terje was right.
"We're all kooks to somebody else." -Shelby Menzel
-
04-01-2014, 08:03 PM #110
-
04-01-2014, 08:05 PM #111
-
04-01-2014, 08:13 PM #112
OP is Anubis
Zone Controller
"He wants to be a pro, bro, not some schmuck." - Hugh Conway
"DigitalDeath would kick my ass. He has the reach of a polar bear." - Crass3000
-
04-01-2014, 08:33 PM #113
I think it's funny how we all bash religion and deity worship but are fascinated with the spiritual aspects of experiences with drugs like DMT. Maybe moses was hallucinating too?
-
04-01-2014, 08:36 PM #114
That is fascinating if you give a fuck about the Bible to start with. There's a very good chance that Moses was just as fictional as Jesus - an allegory for the teachings of the time.
Talk to me about DaVinci, Mozart, and/or Einstein tripping and I'll listen.
-
04-01-2014, 08:41 PM #115
Your DNA and my DNA are not the same. We have thousands of single nucleotide differences between us called SNP's (single nucleotide polymorphisms). Some were inherited others were freshly minted during cell replication. This is the basis of evolution and it happens randomly ... sort of. Regardless, the vast majority of these changes are to regions of our genome that do not code for proteins or regulatory RNA's. Therefore, they are non-functional but because they are not under selective pressure to either persist or be removed by natural forces they become permanent assuming procreation.
Red hair is a bad example because there may in fact be some environmental effect driving hair color. Specifically, people in warmer, hotter climates tend to have more pigmentation and darker hair whereas those in colder climates do not need this and have fairer hair. The exact environmental explanation is unknown to me, but I'm sure someone has looked into it.
-
04-01-2014, 08:45 PM #116
-
04-01-2014, 08:50 PM #117Ski edits | http://vimeo.com/user389737/videos
-
04-01-2014, 08:56 PM #118
OK, but we aren't talking about ALL traits, but the main ones. Bipedal motion, ability to run for long distance, etc. - and that's just for humans. We also, due to our huge brains, moved beyond the need for direct benefit of mutation for survival in some odd societal ways. Look at the increase in breast size (and narrowing of the hips) in women over the last 200 years - it's not due to need for lactation or hormonal manipulation of our foodstuffs. Asians are getting bigger titted simply because large breasted women are considered more desirable mates and are thus mated with more often (and successfully) than the old stereotypical flat girl. There is also evidence that the Epicanthic fold is changing due to selective breeding in Japan. Look how much taller we are as a species than we were a mere 1/2 millennium ago.
This same urge/need gave us peacocks, mandrills, gold fish, etc. Our fundamental physiology changes to help us survive and reproduce. Emphasis on the latter.
I get what you're saying. Some mutations just happen and we don't filter them out of the gene pool because they are harmless. That's not the point tho.
-
04-01-2014, 09:14 PM #119Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
-
04-01-2014, 09:35 PM #120
-
04-01-2014, 09:54 PM #121Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
Just to take the other side of that, just because we don't see or understand the evolutionary function of a vestigial/"useless" trait doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one.
-
04-01-2014, 10:01 PM #122
-
04-01-2014, 10:03 PM #123Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
Telepathically you're good though.
-
04-01-2014, 10:09 PM #124
I knew you were going to type that.
-
04-01-2014, 10:16 PM #125Good-lookin' wool
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Posts
- 11,758
Bookmarks