justcool:

I have no probelm with the above, infact it is a good summery.

I think we have exhausted the issue of 'facts,' 'laws,' and 'theories.' I have nothing more to add to that.

@KAD
Evolution and Adaptation are not the same thing. There are no synonyms in science, each term has a different meaning.
In order not to make a long post, let me just ask you a question: If you asked in a science exam,

Is there any difference between evolution and adaptation?

What would your answer be. Please let me know.

If I were to be asked that in a science exam, my answer would be:

There is a tangible difference only if the adaptation experienced by or within the species does not involve a change in the allele frequency of the population in question.

KAG:

If I were to be asked that in a science exam, my answer would be:

There is a tangible difference only if the adaptation experienced by or within the species does not involve a change in the allele frequency of the population in question.

Thank you, and I rest my case.

I don't get your case, justcool. What's the point you're making? Adaptation is near-inseparable from evolution, and the question of their being the 'same thing' isn't one that should even have risen. It's like asking if a 'car' and the 'wheels of a car' are the same thing, since two words don't mean the same thing in auto-mechanics.

justcool:

Thank you, and I rest my case.

If your case was that adaptation is a part of evolution - inseparable and often sharing the same processes as speciation - then yes, I suppose your case has been made.

Mad_Max:

I don't get your case, justcool. What's the point you're making? Adaptation is near-inseparable from evolution, and the question of their being the 'same thing' isn't one that should even have risen. It's like asking if a 'car' and the 'wheels of a car' are the same thing, since two words don't mean the same thing in auto-mechanics.

My point is simply that 'adaptation' and 'evolution' are not exactly the same, just like the wheels of a car is not the same with the car. I pointed this out because if you use instances where organism adapted to their environments as proofs of evolution, you argument will fall apart when your opponent points out to you that by adaptation the organisms have not changed species.
While, using adaptation as example of how organisms evolve is not a bad idea, but it is always necessary to point out that adaptation is not evolution itself but can lead to it.
I have seen religionists wallow in joy when they succeed in proving that adaptation does not lead to a new specie. Once this point is made, they think they have discredited the whole theory of evolution; what they don't realise is that adaptation is not necessarily evolution.
Also such labelling gives people the wrong impression of evolution. A lot of people have the wrong impresion of evolution, they think that it is something that happens within a lifetime like adaptation. Somebody once said that the reason why the wild life population is decreasing while the human life population is growing could be that the wild life is evolving into humans.

KAG:

If your case was that adaptation is a part of evolution - inseparable and often sharing the same processes as speciation - then yes, I suppose your case has been made.

You can say that adaptation is a part of evolution, just like a single step is a part of journey but not the same thing as the journey. "Insepareble," is not the right choice of words, because not all adaptations lead to evolution. An adaptation that does not involve the genes will not lead to evolution.
An example of such adaptation is "Acclimation" which only involves acquired traits and not the genes. Such adaptation can be temporal, yet it is still adaptation because it is a response to a change in the environment, in such cases when the environment returns to normal, the organism loses the acquired traits.

I will give an example, a whiteman living in Nigeria gets a tanned skin. This tanning of his skin is adaptation but not evolution. It has not affected his genes, and when he returns to Europe he loses the tan. And also, he cannot pass on this acquired trait(tanned skin) to his offsprigs because it has not affected his genes.

The type of adaptation that leads to evolution comes from transmited genetic variations which is preserved by natural selection. An amphibian, for example would not return back to being a fish just because it returned back to the water. This is because evolution has taken place; but a whiteman will quickly lose his tan on returning back to Europe, this is because no evolution has taken place.

Another difference is that evolution deals with a entire population over a larger period of time. It is impossible for an organism to evolve within a life time. Actually it is impossible for a single organism to evolve. A single organism can only adapt; and adaptation can take place in one lifetime.

Remember my analogy in my earlier post where I compared the relationship between adaptation and evolution to the relationship between a minute and a century.

Ah. My two cents quickly again.

@Justcool. I do not think tanning is adaptation per se. It is just reaction. White folks get tanned in their part of the world. Even black people get tanned. It is just skin burning and has nothing to do with melanin production or withdrawal.

Your argument is valid but you're explaining it the wrong way. All Adaptation is not evolution. But all evolution is adaptation. In this way they're inseparable. Evolution is continuous adaptation over usually millions of years till it is permanent and become evolution.

Also you seem to have an idea that evolution must involve physical changes as in limbs and organs etc but this, I think, is incorrect. Evolution may simply be a permanent change in behaviour.

Again, you seem to believe that ALL members of a specie evolve exactly the same way. I do not think so. I think perhaps certain group might develop a different way to adapt or ultimately evolve from another group. This is why we have different breeds of basically the same specie.

Lastly you said something about traits not being imprinted in the genes. I also think this is incorrect because adaptation and ultimately evolution can only proceed through experience and this experience can only be passed on to offspring by the genes. What I think happens is that, when an unfavourable change occurs, be it in the form of a new predator or climate change or a new parasite or pathogen, a small code is made by the suffering creature and possibly with a way to tackle the problem. This code is recessive and when new offspring emerge they are not affected by the code. Later they experience the same things themselves and they add information to this code. This process continues for millions of years till the code is robust enough for it to come to fore and a change takes place in the organism. This is just my own theory though.

So in conclusion, Justcool, I agree with the crux of your argument but not the way you make your point.

P.S. Everything I've said is my personal conjecture and I do not know anything for sure

Your humility is disarming, Buzzzzzzz. Darwin isn't here, and neither is the Evolution Oracle, so anything anyone says is just their opinion and nothing more.

What's the point you're making, Justcool? Adaptation is not evolution, and so. . .?? What's your line of thought?
And why do you believe evolution necessarily means a change of species? If humans adapted to external changes over a period of time, that somehow translates them into a new, non-human species or something? We'll just get embroiled in semantics again over the word 'species', because you might be referring to some of the staggering physical changes to a species over time that gives it a different appearance and new gadgetry from its ancestors. But this doesn't apply to all species. Bacteria still look the same, because for millions of years there's been few threats to their survival they needed to adapt to.

We share 90% of, is it our genetic make-up?, with our simian ape friends in the forest, but we aren't tagged the same 'species'. There seems to be a staggering biological similarity and inter-relatedness among living things on the planet. A common ancestor may give rise to diverse biological offsprings that look dissimilar down the line from responses to different factors, from different adaptations, much like we look nothing like the Chinese, and they look nothing like occidentals. Diifferences among some animals may be even more startling than that, though they share the same ancestry. The tags we give to animals ('species'/class/kingdom/human/ animal/ mammal/,etc) have more to do with the human necessity to put things in boxes and categories than any real biological differences among many of these 'species'.

Buzzzzzzzz:

Ah. My two cents quickly again.

@Justcool. I do not think tanning is adaptation per se. It is just reaction. White folks get tanned in their part of the world. Even black people get tanned. It is just skin burning and has nothing to do with melanin production or withdrawal.

Tanning is adaptation. This is all I will say to you. There is no need for long arguments, we live in the age of information.

Buzzzzzzzz:


Also you seem to have an idea that evolution must involve physical changes as in limbs and organs etc but this, I think, is incorrect. Evolution may simply be a permanent change in behaviour.

Again, you seem to believe that ALL members of a specie evolve exactly the same way. I do not think so. I think perhaps certain group might develop a different way to adapt or ultimately evolve from another group. This is why we have different breeds of basically the same specie.

The above is yours, you did not get that from my posts. You draw such conclusions from my posts beats me. If you can quote where I said or suggested the above, it will help us a lot; for then I will further explain what I meant.

Buzzzzzzzz:

Lastly you said something about traits not being imprinted in the genes. I also think this is incorrect because adaptation and ultimately evolution can only proceed through experience and this experience can only be passed on to offspring by the genes. What I think happens is that, when an unfavourable change occurs, be it in the form of a new predator or climate change or a new parasite or pathogen, a small code is made by the suffering creature and possibly with a way to tackle the problem. This code is recessive and when new offspring emerge they are not affected by the code. Later they experience the same things themselves and they add information to this code. This process continues for millions of years till the code is robust enough for it to come to fore and a change takes place in the organism. This is just my own theory though.

I never said that all traits are not imprinted in the genes. Once again I wonder how you draw these conclusions from my posts. Their is a type of adaptation called 'Acclimation' which only involves acquired traits that do not involve the genes and hence not passed down to the offspring.

Buzzzzzzzz:

So in conclusion, Justcool, I agree with the crux of your argument but not the way you make your point.

Point taken and thank you; but do I have to apologise for you not liking the way I make my point?

Buzzzzzzzz:


P.S. Everything I've said is my personal conjecture and I do not know anything for sure

Thanks for your honesty. I, personally, do not consider myself an authority in biological evolution. But it will help if we back our arguments by researches and discoveries done by authorities. We live in the age of information.

Thanks

Mad_Max:

Your humility is disarming, Buzzzzzzz. Darwin isn't here, and neither is the Evolution Oracle, so anything anyone says is just their opinion and nothing more.

What's the point you're making, Justcool? Adaptation is not evolution, and so. . .?? What's your line of thought?
And why do you believe evolution necessarily means a change of species? If humans adapted to external changes over a period of time, that somehow translates them into a new, non-human species or something? We'll just get embroiled in semantics again over the word 'species', because you might be referring to some of the staggering physical changes to a species over time that gives it a different appearance and new gadgetry from its ancestors. But this doesn't apply to all species. Bacteria still look the same, because for millions of years there's been few threats to their survival they needed to adapt to.

We share 90% of, is it our genetic make-up?, with our simian ape friends in the forest, but we aren't tagged the same 'species'. There seems to be a staggering biological similarity and inter-relatedness among living things on the planet. A common ancestor may give rise to diverse biological offsprings that look dissimilar down the line from responses to different factors, from different adaptations, much like we look nothing like the Chinese, and they look nothing like occidentals. Diifferences among some animals may be even more startling than that, though they share the same ancestry. The tags we give to animals ('species'/class/kingdom/human/ animal/ mammal/,etc) have more to do with the human necessity to put things in boxes and categories than any real biological differences among many of these 'species'.

@madmax
Point taken and thank you. I have my reservations but further arguments will get us no where. However, I acknowledge and respect your views.

Lol. I wasn't aware there was an argument. Even if I were so inclined, your absolutely certain "Tanning is an adaptation" will make even the most intrepid arguer wilt. It doesn't matter like you said. But I did ask for your speculations as to why nature seems to be in a state of war and it's dog eat dog, when you're sure the process is designed and guided. Why should killing each other to survive be an optimal state of affairs for any designer of evolution? Haven't you wondered about this?

Maybe tanning is a variant of adaptation. Melanin is produced as a reaction to the sun, I think. We Africans got our black and brown skins from a similar process eons ago. But europeans have been in that environment for a millenia, and it's fairly obvious they're already adapted to it, untanned skins and all. Just like other races are already adapted to theirs. The sun isn't a new environmental threat. We've all adapted to the different 'sun strengths' in our locales. Well, not us. Our ancestors did, and passed it down to us through their genes. If I go out into the sun in say, hot Kenya, and I react to the sun and get a little darker, it doesn't mean I'm just now adapting to that environment. Africans are already adapted. You do notice tanning fades once you get out of the sun. Or do you perhaps see Europeans turning into a black and brown race later down the line, as tanning is an adaptation to their environment?

The sun has been here for billions of years and humans have already adapted. Unless there's a change to our environment that natural selection 'perceives' as a threat to our survival, there are not likely to be new adaptations. If flowers covered the world permanently, it would be a nuisance but not a threat. If water permanently covered the world and it's all one big ocean with green plants growing on the sea floor's higher levels, it might be interesting to check back and see what we look like after eons have passed.

justcool:

You can say that adaptation is a part of evolution, just like a single step is a part of journey but not the same thing as the journey. "Insepareble," is not the right choice of words, because not all adaptations lead to evolution. An adaptation that does not involve the genes will not lead to evolution.

It's more than a single step: adaptation is more akin to a series of steps, at which point it becomes difficult to draw a line between the steps taken and the journey that involves walking. While I have taken steps to leave room for adaptations that may not involve genetic change, I can't think of any that isn't genetic. I suspect there are some out there, but your example below isn't adaptation. That it's (most often) an effect of changes in the genes of a population is why I have said it's inseparable from evolution.

An example of such adaptation is "Acclimation" which only involves acquired traits and not the genes. Such adaptation can be temporal, yet it is still adaptation because it is a response to a change in the environment, in such cases when the environment returns to normal, the organism loses the acquired traits.

I will give an example, a whiteman living in Nigeria gets a tanned skin. This tanning of his skin is adaptation but not evolution. It has not affected his genes, and when he returns to Europe he loses the tan. And also, he cannot pass on this acquired trait(tanned skin) to his offsprigs because it has not affected his genes.

Acclimation is not an example of adaptation. A white person tanning is not adaptation. The reaction that causes tanning, not just in White people I might add, was a result of adaptation; wherein melanin is produced to protect the skin against UV rays. However, this is markedly different from your example, which involves mistaking the effect of an adaptation with the adaptation itself.

The type of adaptation that leads to evolution comes from transmited genetic variations which is preserved by natural selection.

Is there any other?

An amphibian, for example would not return back to being a fish just because it returned back to the water. This is because evolution has taken place; but a whiteman will quickly lose his tan on returning back to Europe, this is because no evolution has taken place.

Another difference is that evolution deals with a entire population over a larger period of time. It is impossible for an organism to evolve within a life time. Actually it is impossible for a single organism to evolve. A single organism can only adapt; and adaptation can take place in one lifetime.

While you're right in stating that a single organism can't evolve, a population can involve in a generation.

Remember my analogy in my earlier post where I compared the relationship between adaptation and evolution to the relationship between a minute and a century.

Yes. And like I said previously it's a wrong analogy.

@madmax
I have stated many times in this thread that not all types of adaption makes an imprint in the genes; thus not all forms of adaptation are inhereted or passed onto the offspring. I even gave an example --Acclimation. But it seems that no one is reading my posts.

About adaptation, if you don't believe me check out these sites:

For example, tanning is a process of phenotypic adaptation -- a way for lighter-skinned individuals to adapt (phenotypically) to intense sunlight by building up protective pigmentation in their skin

http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/adaptatn.htm

Examples of physiological adaptation are tanning of skin when exposed to sun over long periods, the formation of callouses on hands in response to repeated contact or pressure, and the ability of certain organisms to absorb nutrients under low oxygen tensions.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Physiological_adaptation


I repeat: Not all forms of adaptation are evolutionary adaptation. These is something called physiological adaptation adaptation, which happens in a lifetime of organism and is usually temporary.

Also about the sun having being there a long time, this does not mean that creatures on earth including humans have stopped adapting to the rays of the sun. There is no standstill in nature, nature keeps refining itself. The goal is not just to survive the challenges of the environment but to thrive in it and make the best use of the environment.

There is a law of creation, "wherever their is room for improvement, improvement must be made," this law lies in the will of God, and it is also a manifestation of the will of God which drives everything onward, unceasingly towards perfection. Everything in creation, including nature, obey this law; only humans sometimes refuse to obey his law which is necessary for a continuous existence.

Nature is not wasteful and clearly shows guidance but I will return to that later when I have time. Perhaps on the weekend, I will bombard you with a long post on the issue of design, guidance in natural processes, and wastefulness of nature. As for not my dear mad_max, all I can say to you is wait for me. And pray that Nigerian beats Argentina on Saturday, so that I will be in a good mood to discuss.

@KAG
I believe that my post above(which is directed to mad max) answered all your subsequent questions; there is no need repeating the same thing.

There are many types of adaption. I gave two types in my post above. Please take time to read my post above. And yes, not all adaptations involve the genes.

Also, if you will be kind enough as to give me your definition of 'Acclimation,' I will appreciate it.

Thanks.

@KAG

As I await your definition, let me give a definition from Answers.com.

A reversible adaptation to changes in a single environmental factor (e.g. temperature). Acclimation is applied most commonly to physiological experiments conducted in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Compare acclimatization.

http://www.answers.com/topic/acclimation

Evening All,

All in all a really nice narrative discussion. Thanks to all the contributors of what for me has been a great read and in some ways a bit of a "humbler" for me. Only recently I was "whingeing" about there being nothing noteworthy on the religious board these days. Well resurrected moderator, one could be forgiven for thinking I whined directly to you. And about evolution, one I normally avoid, being in no way, shape or form a scientist.

@justcool, I must say, you've pretty much "owned" this thread - IMHO & thus far anyway - and the merits of your position apart, your very concise posts and patient unfussed responses has been great. You have my regards.

From your first post (#4), its seems to me that you believe in both creation and evolution, indeed it appears that you consider they are somehow part of the same process. Apologies if I misascribe anything too you, but if I have, I expect the same deliberate rebuttal that has been your hallmark on this thread.

My position is pretty much what you'd call the"default" Christian one of creation, not by revelation or even study, but primarily because I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise.

I'm intrigued by your postulating evolution somehow bringing us to an "end point" as it were and would appreciate more on this if you care to indulge. Especially in light of this statement;

Evolution is a reality only that scientists have not yet figured-out exactly how it happened. The major problem, like you pointed out, is that evolution is not a repeatable experiment. We cannot repeat the process in a lab and observe exactly how it happened.

And my own thinking that humans beings, being in a fallen state, are if anything, for the most part spiritually and physically degenerating.

To all and regards evolution at large, I am yet to be convinced that any variation amongst humans is anything more than adaptation based on what is contained within the human genome and I guess what I'd describe as phenotypical differences? I also fail to grasp how this variation - whether termed evoutionary or not, could give rise to a whole new species, or even if it did, why (a) the species being evolved from would necessarily have to disappear (to the extent that they are not easily traceable by fossils or some other evidence, or even co-exist and perhaps inter-breed) and how (b) these changes would somehow uniformly transmit amongst a whole population.

Appreciate any thoughts regards my position and concerns

God bless
TV

Wheres davidylan? This is one of the topics that spark him up

@toba
This isn't an Evolution Vs 'the Unknown Writer of Genesis is Literarily Correct' thread. Everyone here pretty much accept evolution as our biological origin, and everything said sprang from that. And many of the posters believe in God.

@justcool
I wasn't aware you'd stated something several times, or that there's an argument over 'genes'. I thought you stated tanning is an adaptation, as if we're just now adapting to the sun as a species, and that's what we've been tugging at. I was saying we all get dark when we're in the sun, as it automatically produces melanin and Vit D on skin, but no new adaptation is taking place. I think an adaptation has to take place FIRST in a species, before you can point to it and call it an adaptation and specify what it is adapting to. I don't think our species temporarily getting a little darker when we go outside now, qualifies, unless there is something down the line you anticipate permanently happening to our skin. What you're calling ' 'temporary adaptation' is acclamatization, and in evolutionary parlance, they're not the same things. Not unless your 'temporary adaptation' is shared by a group and passed down to their offsprings, and then it's no longer temporary, is it? You've been using the everyday meaning of 'adapting' to something, but adaptation in evolution is a little more complicated than the ordinary, everyday usage of the word.

I wasn't talking about 'waste' in nature. Been through that with Deep Sight and if the mutual admiration is anything to go by, know your minds work the same way. What I was asking is pretty straightforward, I think.  There's a 'law of creation'? Maybe, but don't go beyond your facts too much. The Grail Message isn't a science text any more than the bible is, and while you're free to accept anything in it on faith, the rest of us aren't obliged to do so and admit it as scientific evidence.

Justcool, did you read those online extracts you posted there? That's how you got, "Tanning is an adaptation"? And why are you posting online extracts as 'proof' when you wouldn't let Mantraa do the same?

And you're talking football? Ew. I'm female. For that crime alone, Argentina will whup your asses 20-0.

TV01:

To all and regards evolution at large, I am yet to be convinced that any variation amongst humans is anything more than adaptation based on what is contained within the human genome and I guess what I'd describe as phenotypical differences? I also fail to grasp how this variation - whether termed evoutionary or not, could give rise to a whole new species, or even if it did, why (a) the species being evolved from would necessarily have to disappear (to the extent that they are not easily traceable by fossils or some other evidence, or even co-exist and perhaps inter-breed) and how (b) these changes would somehow uniformly transmit amongst a whole population.

Appreciate any thoughts regards my position and concerns. God bless.TV

Hi TV, and welcome.

The 'intermediate species' argument would entail a long explanation that would include explaining everything about evolution itself again. There are no strict intermediate species, because there isn't a biological continuum, the end of which a species is consciously moving towards. We're not at 1, and aiming for 3, with evolution as the vehicle. Adaptation takes place mostly to ensure the species survives a new, previously
unanticipated change in its biological fortunes. If Dinosaurs hadn't vanished I suspect we'd still be here, but we'll have a body that has factored in the threat of dinosaurs, and adapted to it. Maybe we'd have great speed, or flight, or toxins that brough them down, or be as big or bigger than they are.

Adaptation isn't a continuous thing, but happens in fits and starts, when it has to. With us, it was a bit like making a baby, only we weren't
growing but adapting. You see a foetus at one day, ten days, ten weeks, five months, nine months. What's the difference between the baby at say,two weeks, and the baby at two weeks plus one day? And the difference between that and when you add an extra day, and another extra day, and so on?You barely notice any, do you? But there's a very startling difference, after a long process, between the baby at nine months and the baby at two weeks isn't there, even though you couldn't see the day to day differences? If the changes had been taking place outside the womb, as adaptation, you would have called the nine month old baby a different species from the two week old foetus, and wondered where all the
'intermediate species' were. The question isn't 'Where are the intermediate species'. The question is: If you were shown the 'intermediate species', would YOU recognize it?

^^^ the extent some people go to try and rationalize this illogical evolution myth.

^^^ the extent some people go to try and rationalize this illogical evolution myth. Grin

All mad max is saying is that the evolutionary changes are very small over many generations. For instance, you may look the same today as you did yesterday, but over the period of several years you will notice that you have changed. Evolutionary changes are much slower than that. For example, you may look similar to your father and grandfather but you will look nothing like your great great great great great great great great great great grandfather after all the incremental slight changes are taken into consideration.

I hope this helps you understand the logic of small incremental changes over long periods of time.

mantraa:

All mad max is saying is that the evolutionary changes are very small over many generations. For instance, you may look the same today as you did yesterday, but over the period of several years you will notice that you have changed. Evolutionary changes are much slower than that. For example, you may look similar to your father and grandfather but you will look nothing like your great great great great great great great great great great grandfather after all the incremental slight changes are taken into consideration.

I hope this helps you understand the logic of small incremental changes over long periods of time.

There could well be many changes or variation between a person and their G¹⁰Father due to a number of things, diet, lifestyle, climate etc etc, , but does that make them a different species? All the changes responses are to make him better suited, not different.

Over time the result of adaptation or variation may well make one change, but they'd still be the same "species" no?

Thanks
TV

Mad_Max:

Hi TV, and welcome.

Hiya MadMax,

Mad_Max:

The 'intermediate species' argument would entail a long explanation that would include explaining everything about evolution itself again. There are no strict intermediate species, because there isn't a biological continuum, the end of which a species is consciously moving towards. We're not at 1, and aiming for 3, with evolution as the vehicle. Adaptation takes place mostly to ensure the species survives a new, previously
unanticipated change in its biological fortunes.

No need, you'd probably lose me quite early on anyway . But based on what you've said above, it makes it even harder to comprehend.

If there's no continuum or pre-defined end-point, with random mutations - and lets assume they are all beneficial - happening all over the species, shouldn't the variation amongst humans look like something out of Star-Trek? Webbed feet for the dwellers/fishermen of the Lagos lagoons, big padded bottoms for those who spend all day seated at computer screens and the like? But seriously!

Do biological threats - or any other kind - really lead to new species? Again, simply put, would a real biological threat take a "time out" for an "evolutionary response (over millenia)" to happen? There is either pretty much instantaneous change to cope or the population/sub-populace perishes. Just like when new diseases are introduced to  populations. Resistance/immunity may be developed/acquired, but it will be based on the immediate ability to adapt no? Has it been shown to lead to an entirely new species?

Mad_Max:

If Dinosaurs hadn't vanished I suspect we'd still be here, but we'll have a body that has factored in the threat of dinosaurs, and adapted to it. Maybe we'd have great speed, or flight, or toxins that brough them down, or be as big or bigger than they are.

Again, this may sound somewhat plausible at first glance, but does it really bear close scrutiny?  Humans as big as Dinosaurs? Flying? At least lets start with webbed hands and feet . If Dinosaurs came before humans, wouldn't that suggest that humans wouldn't even have made it? Human response to such threats has been more technological than physical.

Mad_Max:

Adaptation isn't a continuous thing, but happens in fits and starts, when it has to. With us, it was a bit like making a baby, only we weren't growing but adapting. You see a foetus at one day, ten days, ten weeks, five months, nine months. What's the difference between the baby at say,two weeks, and the baby at two weeks plus one day? And the difference between that and when you add an extra day, and another extra day, and so on?You barely notice any, do you? But there's a very startling difference, after a long process, between the baby at nine months and the baby at two weeks isn't there, even though you couldn't see the day to day differences? If the changes had been taking place outside the womb, as adaptation, you would have called the nine month old baby a different species from the two week old foetus, and wondered where all the
'intermediate species' were. The question isn't 'Where are the intermediate species'. The question is: If you were shown the 'intermediate species', would YOU recognize it?

If adaptation is not a continuous, happening in "fits and starts" and evolution is not a continuum, how can you analogise via aging? which is continuous, pretty steady and absolutely a continuum, with very clear pre-determined start and end points?

If an embryo via foetus to an adullt likened to speciation, would a seed to a mighty oak be considered likewise. Growth/ageing do not IMO mirror your position on evolution via adaptation or otherwise.

All adaptations or change responses, to whatever kind of threat/difference, are based on whatever is inherent. Over time, some may become dominant or codified, but based on what was there.


Its why Justcools point of evolution being an end point is at first glance somewhat intriguing, although I'd need to hear more to better understand the creative timeline and reasoning behind it.

Oya Justcool  !

Thanks
TV

^I just popped in to say, a TV sighting. lol. Prodigal son, the guests are almost gone oh! na just me and you soon.

I'll respond to this, then, as if it were addressed to me

justcool:

@madmax
I have stated many times in this thread that not all types of adaption makes an imprint in the genes; thus not all forms of adaptation are inhereted or passed onto the offspring. I even gave an example --Acclimation. But it seems that no one is reading my posts.

About adaptation, if you don't believe me check out these sites:
http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/adaptatn.htm
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Physiological_adaptation


I repeat: Not all forms of adaptation are evolutionary adaptation. These is something called physiological adaptation adaptation, which happens in a lifetime of organism and is usually temporary.

It's an interesting distinction, one I haven't had a reason to use, but it's one I can accept as anything else would just be semantics. So let's use phenotypic and evolutionary adaptations. The latter to describe identifiable genetic modifications that aid fitness in a population, and the former for temporal effects.

However, you must accept that your current argument is a departure from the one to which I initially responded where "Evolution deals with change of a species from one species to another, over a very long period of time", amongst other things. In any case, can we also agree that a series of evolutionary adaptations can lead to speciation, and not necessarily over centuries but also in one to a few generations?

justcool:

@KAG
I believe that my post above(which is directed to mad max) answered all your subsequent questions; there is no need repeating the same thing.

There are many types of adaption. I gave two types in my post above. Please take time to read my post above. And yes, not all adaptations involve the genes.

Also, if you will be kind enough as to give me your definition of 'Acclimation,' I will appreciate it.

Thanks.

I know it's often frowned upon by many, but I like the Wiki definition:

"Acclimatization or acclimation is the process of an individual organism's phenotype adjusting to change in its environment, allowing it to survive changes in temperature, water and food availability, other stresses and often relates to seasonal weather change"

Rather than simply dismissing it as not adaptation, I will instead classify it as phenotypic adaptation.

TV01:

Hiya MadMax,

No need, you'd probably lose me quite early on anyway . But based on what you've said above, it makes it even harder to comprehend.

If there's no continuum or pre-defined end-point, with random mutations - and lets assume they are all beneficial - happening all over the species, shouldn't the variation amongst humans look like something out of Star-Trek? Webbed feet for the dwellers/fishermen of the Lagos lagoons, big padded bottoms for those who spend all day seated at computer screens and the like? But seriously!

Not really, no. I don't see the logic between a continuum and star trek and webbed feet, but, while there are humans with "Spock ears" and webbed feet, generally, the mutations that occur in most species are easily contained, repaired and/or unnoticeable amidst the many other proteins, etc in the genome. To be fair, many (most?) mutations, particularly in humans, are not physiological.

Do biological threats - or any other kind - really lead to new species? Again, simply put, would a real biological threat take a "time out" for an "evolutionary response (over millenia)" to happen? There is either pretty much instantaneous change to cope or the population/sub-populace perishes. Just like when new diseases are introduced to  populations. Resistance/immunity may be developed/acquired, but it will be based on the immediate ability to adapt no? Has it been shown to lead to an entirely new species?

First, evolutionary adaptations don't "need" a millennia to occur: they may take place, depending on gestation, in generations.

Second, genetic drift can also play a part, in that several small populations may have already possessed traits that help them to survive changes to their environment. Natural selection may then com into play.

Finally, yes, the immediate ability to adapt - plasticity - varies between species, and many species will go - an have gone - extinct as result of less plasticity.

Has it been shown to lead to new species? Yes. Rats make a good example as new species of rats have arisen based on changes, and/or transportation to new, environments. Kangaroo rats are a good example.

KAG - Is there not a difference between  -

1. Adaptation within a species - whereat various sub-sets may emerge displaying variations within that same species - (e.g: the kangaroo rats you mentioned -

AND

2. Evolution into an altogether different species - e;g - Fish overtime becomes amphibian, which becomes reptile and which becomes bird.

Deep Sight:

KAG - Is there not a difference between  -

1. Adaptation within a species - whereat various sub-sets may emerge displaying variations within that same species - (e.g: the kangaroo rats you mentioned -

AND

2. Evolution into an altogether different species - e;g - Fish overtime becomes amphibian, which becomes reptile and which becomes bird.

Yes there are variations within the various species of kangaroo rat, but it is the same process that led to the speciation within kangaroo rats that occurs in the evolution that eventually makes a fish amphibious, etc.

Post Retracted.

KAG:

Not really, no. I don't see the logic between a continuum and star trek and webbed feet, but, while there are humans with "Spock ears" and webbed feet, generally, the mutations that occur in most species are easily contained, repaired and/or unnoticeable amidst the many other proteins, etc in the genome. To be fair, many (most?) mutations, particularly in humans, are not physiological.

My point being that seing as adaptative/mutative evolution  - please excuse my use of terms, just trying to be understood and avoid "semantic drag" - is so random, wouldn't we expect to see some very peculiar adaptations in particular human populations? And in as much as those things occur (maybe not as vividly as in Star trek perhaps ), they are still humans and not another species or creature entirely.

As for most mutations not being "physiological", thats nice to know, but presumably some do become codified over time?

KAG:

First, evolutionary adaptations don't "need" a millennia to occur: they may take place, depending on gestation, in generations.

Second, genetic drift can also play a part, in that several small populations may have already possessed traits that help them to survive changes to their environment. Natural selection may then com into play.

Finally, yes, the immediate ability to adapt - plasticity - varies between species, and many species will go - an have gone - extinct as result of less plasticity.

I have no quibbles with any of this. But does this mean different/new creatures? This is merely variation in what I'd call the "genetic bandwith" inherent within each creature. Take dogs as an example. There're a million different "Mutt" variations, but they are all still dogs. And can viably mate with one another - Sausage Dog and Great Dane. Chihuhaha and Alsatian.

KAG:

Has it been shown to lead to new species? Yes. Rats make a good example as new species of rats have arisen based on changes, and/or transportation to new, environments. Kangaroo rats are a good example.

A new species that cannot mate or produce fertile offspring with non Kangaroo rats? Again not to drag, species is a form of construct, I'm talking one creature "evolving" into a completely different one here.

So some rats have big glutes? So do certain populations in Africa. Does that make them a different species fom the African or non-African populations that don't?

Adaptation, mutation with certain "genetic bandwiths" I can see, but morphing into a completely new creature I am yet to see evidenced.

Thanks for you as ever cogent post though.

Best
TV

KunleOshob:

^^^ the extent some people go to try and rationalize t[b]his illogical evolution myth[/b].

My brother i tire too ooo.

TV01:

My point being that seing as adaptative/mutative evolution  - please excuse my use of terms, just trying to be understood and avoid "semantic drag" - is so random, wouldn't we expect to see some very peculiar adaptations in particular human populations? And in as much as those things occur (maybe not as vividly as in Star trek perhaps ), they are still humans and not another species or creature entirely.

And we do. From the community with Apo-AIM (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html) to the community with a mutated limbs that gives them an advantage when it come to climbing (I'll have to find a link later), there are pockets of humans with some known beneficial mutations. The flip-side, of course, is the number of humans with maladaptive or damaging mutations.

However, yes, they are still humans, but one wouldn't expect just a known mutation here and there to cause speciation.

As for most mutations not being "physiological", thats nice to know, but presumably some do become codified over time?

Yes

I have no quibbles with any of this. But does this mean different/new creatures? This is merely variation in what I'd call the "genetic bandwith" inherent within each creature. Take dogs as an example. There're a million different "Mutt" variations, but they are all still dogs. And can viably mate with one another - Sausage Dog and Great Dane. Chihuhaha and Alsatian.

It depends on what you mean by different new. Humans are still apes, as are bonobos. The difference between apes and dogs is that dogs are a ring species.

A new species that cannot mate or produce fertile offspring with non Kangaroo rats? Again not to drag, species is a form of construct, I'm talking one creature "evolving" into a completely different one here.

So some rats have big glutes? So do certain populations in Africa. Does that make them a different species fom the African or non-African populations that don't?

Adaptation, mutation with certain "genetic bandwiths" I can see, but morphing into a completely new creature I am yet to see evidenced.

Thanks for you as ever cogent post though.

Best
TV

It's more than a case of them being bipedal. The kangaroo rat species can't mate nor produce a fertile offspring with other rodents. More than that, their features from their kidneys, lack of sweat glands and gestation periods set them apart. I don't know what you mean by something different emerging, but I suspect you're thinking of some sort of saltation which isn't what the theory of evolution states.

And we do. From the community with Apo-AIM (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html) to the community with a mutated limbs that gives them an advantage when it come to climbing (I'll have to find a link later), there are pockets of humans with some known beneficial mutations. The flip-side, of course, is the number of humans with maladaptive or damaging mutations.

So be the mutations good or bad, they remain humans, no?

However, yes, they are still humans, but one wouldn't expect just a known mutation here and there to cause speciation.

So what would?

It's more than a case of them being bipedal. The kangaroo rat species can't mate nor produce a fertile offspring with other rodents. More than that, their features from their kidneys, lack of sweat glands and gestation periods set them apart. I don't know what you mean by something different emerging, but I suspect you're thinking of some sort of saltation which isn't what the theory of evolution states.

Simply stated, Kangaroo rats are not actually rats. We have just presumed to label them that and assumed "evolution" from rats, as it can't be evidenced?

Would a phenomena such as lions and tigers or horses and donkeys being able to mate, but producing sterile offspring be more suggestive? And are there different species of human, as this is not the case with us? Surely there must be something to lend greater credence to the "fish to amphibian" postulation?

Thanks
TV